Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 29/03/08 at 01:59 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: >> Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> Either it should have been PROP_O or strong arguments should be given >> IMHO like I said above... Just telling that if the maintainer doesn't >> agree they can orphan without mentioning any arguments not to remove is >> not the way to go for PROP_RM IMHO... > > I prefer to be less confronting, and keep the option open for the > maintainer to orphan the package instead of removing it. After all, once > it's orphaned, it's easy to remove it. And if the maintainer doesn't > justify its choice, it's easy to ask. In my experience, maintainers have > been mostly responsive about such queries. > > Also, the person filing the bug report might not know the package > very well, and can make mistakes. I believe that it's important to stay > on the safe side by not being too aggressive, if possible.
That's perfectly ok, though then I don't see any reason to have the bug report be RC severity by default? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
