(Dropping Cc on #453487 and Moritz since the reason for the upgrade of this bug was clarified already)
On 27/03/08 at 19:22 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > We really need to clarify the severities for the "Should this > > > package be orphaned/removed" bugs. > > I would agree to go with: > > - serious for "proposed removal" bugs > > - important for "proposed orphan" bugs. After all, we release with a lot > > of orphaned packages, and unmaintained packages aren't really > > different. > > However, I fear that, since the "proposed orphan" bugs won't be RC, some > > maintainers might ignore them more easily. Also, it prevents them from > > being listed in ddpo-by-mail, for example. > > Maintainers ignoring bugs is kind of the problem, so is not really an > argument... Sure, but it's slightly harder to miss RC bugs than other bugs. > ddpo-by-mail could probably easily be updated to include bugs with a > particular subject pattern? So also not a real argument AFAICS... Except that code has to be written to handle that special case. > > Luk, what are the reasons why you think that severity: important is more > > suitable than severity: serious? If it's only because it blocks testing > > transitions, we could mark the bugs as found in the testing version > > where needed, so testing transitions can still happen. > > Testing migration is certainly an issue. So we could mark the bugs as found in the testing versions, to avoid migration problems. It's not a real argument either. > > If that's because it "artificially" makes the RC bug count higher, we > > could tag the bugs lenny-ignore where applicable (that is, where the > > security team doesn't think that it's a too big problem to release that > > package without maintainer). > > Tagging bugs lenny-ignore is only up to the Release Managers and is only > meant for bugs that will be RC for the next release... > > > What do you think? > > I don't see any reason to have PROP_O bugs be RC severity as orphaned > packages are in most cases not an RC problem and the cases where they > are a problem there should already be open RC bugs against the package... OK, I will send a mail to -devel@ to mention that change of policy. > PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the > mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that > it should not be used lightly and strong arguments are needed for > orphaning instead of removal... I would personally prefer to keep the mentioning of orphaning in the template, because it allows for a "way out" of the problem that should be mentioned. A maintainer might agree to orphan a package, but disagree to take the decision to remove it. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
