On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:32:09 -0600 Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps you should have explicitly stated in the bug that it was for > > security reasons and thus a priority. Make things easy for the arch > > teams -- if you have useful information like that, provide it in an > > easy to see place. Looking at that bug, I don't see anything > > indicating that there's any reason it should have been considered > > over more widely used packages. > > Because setuptools is not widely used? > > The sec bug was (and remains) linked as a blocker. Is that not > explicit or easy enough?
When arch people get dozens to hundreds of bug emails per day, no, it's not. A simple "this is now a security issue, see bug blah" makes it an awful lot easier for arch people to prioritise -- emails that merely show blockers added or removed tend to get ignored because a) they're almost always meaningless changes from the arch team's perspective, and b) the bug email doesn't convey any useful information on its own anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
