-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 01:59:31PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: >severity 457177 serious >thanks > >* Jonas Smedegaard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071221 19:54]: >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:11:21PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote: >> >i hate myself inflated bugs, but if you had have a look at >> >the cited points you'd agree on the severity. >> >> We do not (in this bugreport) have a dispute over severity of those bugs >> that you listed. I did not even comment on them (as you seem well aware) >> but instead requested that you refer to the bugreports, as discussing >> severity of each bug is best done at those other bugreports. >> >> Our disagreement here is on severity of *this* bug, which I interpret as >> a metabug claiming that "this package generally have too many too severe >> bugs". Please correct me if I somehow misunderstood the nature of the >> bug raised with this bugreport. > > >Unfortunatly, I have to agree from a release team POV (i.e. speaking >with my Release Manager hat on) with maks on the general status of the >package, especially as maks spoke with his kernel arch maintainer hat >on (so his remarks shouldn't be lightly waived away).
Waive away? this bugreport is about accumulation of bugs together raising severity of the package in generalm right? I requested to separate specifics, by referring to bugreports related to the issues raised (or, obviously, file bugreports if not reported already). There are several reasons for this request: * Original bugreporters of each issue, and participants in discussions surrounding each bug, are included in this renewed discussion - but only in the parts of the discussion relevant to them * It is easier (for me, at least) to keep track at the various parts of the discussion if not muddled together. >One might discuss about the adequate severity of the individual bugs, >but they together makes this package RC buggy. (Perhaps even some of the >individual bugs make it - we can discuss that at the individual bug >reports if wanted.) Yes, please do! >But there are some cases like "brutal hardcoding - >breaks ony every new linux image either due to /proc, /sys or >/boot/config hardcoded parsing see #443821 for the latest 2.6.23 >variation" which are *not* fixed by adjusting to the current kernel, but >we expect some flexibility and robustness as long term strategy. I shall fork this as a separate bugreport, and comment on it there. >This isn't a final opinion on yaird, but please don't lower the severity >of this bug report until either this bug is fixed also in the opinion >of the bug reporter, or someone from the release team agrees to lowering >the severity. I shall respect your judgement representing the release team. - Jonas - -- Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dr.jones.dk/ +45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHbSicn7DbMsAkQLgRAnYeAKCkOBaJj6tdI4OHoUPhCYRl9rWg8QCcCan4 Wlw0pbMueKXN6wVAgtqO0F8= =jlO/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
