Hi Lucas, thanks for doing this MBF!
I agree with the other two replies and have another thing to add:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I propose to file bugs using the following template, and make them Severity:
> serious after a month (minimum).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------>8
> Subject: upgrade to 3.0 source format
> Severity: important
I think those severities are too high and that they will cause unneeded friction
and frustration, also because (I think) they are not meeting the BTS criteria:
serious:
is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or
"required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's or release manager's
opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release.
important:
a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package,
without rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
So I'd rather propose to file these bugs with severity 'normal' and then wait
and then get policy updated, and then raise the severity further.
To be frank: right now (or in a month) I'd just shake my head at severity
'serious', downgrade the bug and do something else. I totally agree it's
a smell (for some packages, see other replies) but IMO definitly not seriously
smelly :)
IOW: It doesn't stink, it's just a tiny bit awkward and less than ideal.
And that's neither important nor serious.
Finally and again: thank you for doing this work!
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
"Climate change" is an euphenism. "Global warming" as well.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
