On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi, two comments.
Hi Thomas, thanks for the feedback.
> > 1) according to the bug log it is transient (though not reliably
> > solved yet)
>
> It bounced very reliably for me, the person who said he didn't get
> bounces in the bug log later got bounces when he mailed us about
> that in ftpmaster communication.
Fair enough, it should be changed then, but the other reason for
lowering severity stands, IMHO.
> > Would you do for example a stable release update for fixing
> > bouncing maintainer addresses? I doubt it ...
>
> Probably not a stable update, in particular because the BTS uses
> unstable's maintainer addresses. It should be a serious bug because it
Good point, hence it is even less of a reason for keeping a high
severity affecting the current testing version of the package. Anyhow,
the package has another RC bug affecting testing, if that get fixed,
it can be a good chance to fix the maintainer address as well,
otherwise this bug can be closed later on, using unstable, not
affecting the triaging of testing bug reports.
> That said, I'm certainly not raising the severity again myself.
Well, TBH I don't care either that much about the severity of this bug
report, I was just honestly surprised of seeing it marked as an RC and
explained my reasons. If you of anybody else has a strong feeling in
re-rising the severity, by all means go ahead.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
