Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can assure you I had a lot less time to do stuff like fiddle with the
> BTS when I was trying to get potato released.
And I can assure you I was doing a lot more work on new things while
still working on the potato release than I am doing now.
Wichert.
--
_
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:02:04PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Debian development is asynchronous.
> > That's a nice idea in theory.
> It just to be true before we had testing.
I can as
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Debian development is asynchronous.
>
> That's a nice idea in theory.
It just to be true before we had testing.
Wichert.
--
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > > after that.
> >
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No, the same functionality is _NOT_ served by tags. Like it or
> not, our bug listing are done by severity, and shoving policy
> violation into a tag degrades the importance of not violating
> policy.
No. The web frontend considers certain t
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > after that.
>
> Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > after that.
>
> Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> after that.
Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
and stop whining until the next release or the release after that. Yeesh
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:34:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Think about it for a while from any perspective but a hurd hacker's for
> heavens sake.
I have thought about it from all perspectives, from the release managers
perspective specifically.
> Think about what should get the highest pr
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> And, why should the severity only be useful for the release manager, and
> released architectures?
Think about it for a while from any perspective but a hurd hacker's for
heavens sake. Think about what should get the highest pri
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:05:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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 seve
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,
OK, I'll bite.
* Anthony Towns [020503 08:38]:
> 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].
I think you and Joey are saying the same thing if you read h
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020503 09:21]:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > There may be subtle differences between the meanings of the various
> > > terms, but they are *very* strong
* Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020503 09:21]:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There may be subtle differences between the meanings of the various
> > terms, but they are *very* strongly correlated, which is right at the
> > other extreme from orthogonal
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 ser
Anthony Towns wrote:
> ``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
> -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
You know I really wish I hadn't looked at that
straight after lunch (even though it was all
vegetable matter :-)
- Richard
/me gets back to work and vows never to follow
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. "Bugs that will stop the
release of that package
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No, the same functionality is _NOT_ served by tags. Like it or
> > not, our bug listing are done by severity, and shoving policy
> > violation into a tag degrades the importance of not violating
> > pol
t; severity does, for while there would be a one-to-one correspondence
between the tag and this meaning, there is no such correspondence
between the serious severity and egregious Policy violations at present.
Or perhaps you're forgetting the other half of "serious": "or, in the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No, the same functionality is _NOT_ served by tags. Like it or
> not, our bug listing are done by severity, and shoving policy
> violation into a tag degrades the importance of not violating
> policy.
Seems to me that if bug severity is orthagonal to release cri
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:12:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Gotcha. Your humor detector is on the blink.
Ah, I see. So was the part where you called me a hypocrite a joke or
not?
--
G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six
Debian GNU/Linux
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:10:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Strawman.
Branden> ? I don't see how.
>> The rationale I presented argues for creating a severity to use for
>> violations of policy. The point was to
everity minutes after
I signed off to go to bed
I don't see how that attitude helps anyone. Surely people do not need your
permission to discuss the utility of the "serious" severity?
--
G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a
Debian GNU/Linux
existence
>> was of the severity was called into question, and no one seemed to
>> remember the rationale for it.
Branden> You appear to have overlooked the fact that neither aj nor I
Branden> felt that the serious severity should be removed, therefore
Branden> most of yo
remember the rationale for it.
You appear to have overlooked the fact that neither aj nor I felt that
the serious severity should be removed, therefore most of your complains
are off the mark, IMO.
Since you want to drag this out in the public forum of debian-policy,
I'll post some relevant hunk
26 matches
Mail list logo
