Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 07:19, Guillem Jover a écrit : > On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 21:22:00 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > severity 432893 important > > thanks > > > > Le mercredi 29 août 2007 12:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > > Hi Kurt, > > > > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it > > > > wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's > > > > severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's > > > > unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that > > > > the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other > > > > people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages > > > > than ghc, which appears fixed. > > > > > > There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both > > > RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that > > > generated the maintainer scripts. > > > > > > The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't > > > see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been > > > fixed. > > > OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so > > I'm downgrading to important again. > > Sorry but that you are convinced or not does not matter, you should not > be changing the severity in the first place for a package you are not > maintaining, (you are not part of the release team either, nor the bug > submitter).
I don't see why I should not change the severity of a report against a package I'm not maintaining if the severity looks incorrect and the maintainance team didn't state anything about the severity. If you were basing that on something, please let me know. In any case, considering what you wrote, I'll refrain from changing the severity of reports against dpkg, which means I will not downgrade this report even if Kurt does not answer timely.
