On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 09:02 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > It's seemed intuitively obvious to me that a "release goal" could > equally be defined as "a new criterion by which a package can be judged > to be RC-buggy".
One of the defining points of release goals (at least as they've historically existed) is that the issues they cover are _not_ release-critical. > Since "deciding what issues are release-critical" is, > per the delegation announcement, part of the job of the Release Team, > that would naturally seem to fall under their purview. (Conflicting with > this is the fact that, IIRC, the criteria for "release-critical" status > are defined in policy.) Policy indicates that violations of "must" or "required" guidelines "will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution" and are therefore "roughly equivalent to [...] serious". It does not touch at all on the other RC severities and its definition of serious is not all-encompassing, since "maintainer believes package to be unsuitable for release" is sufficient for a severity:serious bug and owner@bugs - although iirc he was also RM at the time - passed responsibility for deciding exactly what constitutes a "serious enough" policy violation to the release managers some years ago. (At least one current member of owner@ has expressed a desire to bring the two sets of issues back in line, but there's at least one current difference between policy must/should issues and the RC policy for jessie.) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1388068530.7018.25.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
