On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity? > > > > No. Please see the top of http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt > > > for which bugs are critical, grave and serious. > > > That is irrelevant for the severity of bugs. > > > This is the relevant definition: > > > serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, the > > problem is a violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive) > > That definition, as listed on > <http://www.us.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities>, links straight to the > release team's RC bug policy.
Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the serious bug description... Anyways, I've always thought the bts severity levels and release criticality were orthogonal things. i.e. it's more complicated than just saying "critical, grave and serious levels are RC". There are important or even normal issues (as per definition of the severity levels) that are more release critical than serious (again, as per definition of the severity levels) bugs. But yet, violation of the Debian policy should be granted serious level. etch-ignore is here to make the issue not release critical. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
