Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/03/08 at 10:12 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>> severity 453487 serious
>> Bug#453487: Should this package be orphaned?
>> Severity set to `serious' from `important'
>
> Hi,
Hi
> We really need to clarify
On 27/03/08 at 10:23 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Other than that, IMHO we should not be cloning the bug reports when
> orphaning before removing a package. Since yesterday I began reassign the
> reports to package,wnpp and retitling them without dropping the severity of
> the report.
Ah, that
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> 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
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/03/08 at 10:12 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > severity 453487 serious
> > Bug#453487: Should this package be orphaned?
> > Severity set to `serious' from `important'
>
> Hi,
>
> We really need to cla
* Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) :
> I have no special opinion about the general case, but in this
> specific case we have a high-profile app with regular security
> issues, which will soon no longer be supported upstream, while
> we will need to support it until 2011.
Bugzilla is a pretty
On 27/03/08 at 10:12 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > severity 453487 serious
> Bug#453487: Should this package be orphaned?
> Severity set to `serious' from `important'
Hi,
We really need to clarify the severities for the "Should this
p
6 matches
Mail list logo
