Hi Holger, let me re-order your mail so that I can reply in an order that puts more concrete points at the top and lets my mail end with a more meta discussion.
Quoting Holger Levsen (2023-10-10 16:54:30) > policy is not a stick to hit with. I agree. I have not argued with policy in favour of this change anywhere unless I'm mistaken. I see RC bugs not as a policy tool but as a way of the release team to classify bugs as being okay for the next release or not. There exist RC bugs that the release team deems RC even though they do not directly violate policy and vice-versa. This is why I contacted the release team before raising their severity. In my mind it is up to them whether the bugs should be RC severity or not but please correct me if I'm wrong. > also because technically it's the right decision from the release team. > these bugs are *currently*, in real life, merely cosmetic. I disagree they are cosmetic or otherwise I would not've encountered them in my own work in Debian. But lets assume that you mean that they are only cosmetic as far as what the buildds do are concerned. In that case, would you rather be in favour of first changing debootstrap to not include Priority:required anymore in the buildd variant and only *then* raise their severity because only then an upload would really fail on the buildds? My idea was to do it the other way round but as said above this is of course up to the release team. > what do you gain by making people more annoyed? nothing. the bugs will not be > fixed faster and the people will not learn to be less or not annoyed. > > so there's no point. I'm going this route because *if* those bugs get classified as RC by the release team, then there are different mechanisms available to fix them, like NMUs in case the maintainer is unresponsive. The patch for each of these bugs is very minimal, so fixing them is usually as simple as adding the missing B-D. > but why? IME people will be more annoyed about RC bugs they disagree with > (even if they only disagree about the severity) than they will be annoyed > about the same bug with severity important. I am aware that this annoys people. I do not like to annoy people. But this is a problem that annoys me (and others). So right now we are in a situation where there are two ways forward: doing nothing and changing things. For each of these two ways there are people in favour of it and people against it. So independent of what the outcome is, *somebody* will be annoyed. Who is there to choose who should be the one annoyed in the end? Quite evidently there is no way out of this that annoys nobody. What would you do? Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
