On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Seems to me that if bug severity is orthagonal to release criticality > > People keep saying that, but it's not true [0]. "Release critical bugs" > > are those that are serious, grave or critical. > Either this is not true, or the BTS documentation is wrong. [[hurd isn't > treated the same as i386]]
There are many unwritten rules about how bugs need to be treated,
and they change depending on what seems the best way to get a working
release out. In particular, filing hurd bugs at high severities before
release (especially when people are already uploading relatively untested
packages with high urgencies) seems likely to lower the quality of woody
dramatically. Adding "arch" tags aren't possible in the short term,
and it's not particularly clear that they'd be helpful at solving that
particular problem.
You're quite welcome to hax0r the BTS slightly to make
it easier to track hurd bugs. You can, eg, add your own
pseudo-header to say "X-This-Is-RC-For-Hurd: yes" and then
grep through the bug spool later to find them all again and
upgrade them when you are actually near release. Or have a
special submitter address ("debian-hurd@lists.debian.org") and use
http://bugs.debian.org/from:debian-hurd@lists.debian.org to look over
them.
Helping hurd release sometime in the next few years isn't important
enough to risk breaking Linux/i386 now.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
pgp4mEkq8ZEHW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
