Rolf Leggewie <debian-b...@rolf.leggewie.biz> (22/01/2012): > Then grave is the wrong severity, it should be critical. Are you now > saying this bug is critical?
There might have been no other packages co-upgraded, so grave as “the package is unusable” is enough. > My frustration is about people who don't really know what's going on > with the package making my life even more difficult than it already is > or needs to be - and insisting on it for the wrong reasons, as it > seems to me. I'm not sure if I qualify for this description, AFAICT I only set the appropriate severity based on what I saw on my system and policy. > > fixing the package [...] is AFAICT trivial. Why don't you just fix > > the package and move to other things? Mistakes happen every day, it's > > not the end of the world to have a grave bug in ones package if one > > learns about it and tries to avoid doing the same mistakes again. > > See, this is one of the things I'm talking about. People only > understand half the story (at best) and refuse to read explanations > even after they were given several times. You for example are > apparently still ignoring the fact that the fix for my mistake had > been up well before this bug even went to grave status. I've stressed > this fact in almost every comment I made here and you still missed it. You said there's a fix in git, but there's no fix in the archive. So setting the appropriate severity, affected versions, etc. is what is expected. I'm sorry you don't seem to like that. > Just one example of how my life gets more complicated than it should > be. Again, I guess a certain level of this cannot be avoided in a > collaborative effort, but the amount of it I'm seeing is frustrating. I could say the same about people whining. > > Wrong. Policy 7.6 says it's an RC bug. > > Even if this was indeed the case, why should the package be kept from > migrating to testing if the problem never affected testing? That's my > idea of course and only covered by common sense not by Policy. We have suite-specific tags, which might have been used to reflect that, but of course challenging the severity repeatedly was much more interesting. I'm not throwing Adam's hat at you, but he's been handling RC bugs for a long while now, you might have just trusted his judgement. > In any case, 7.6 tells me how to get out of the hole (D'uh!) I had dug > for myself. Nowhere does it say that the hole I dug is RC. Furthermore, > grave severity implies either of the following three > > * data loss -> obviously not > * security hole -> obviously not > * makes package unusable -> that's why normally this would be RC but it > does not apply to this particular ticket, 656204 is a bit special No it is not special. You claim it is. > I've also looked into whether this ticket is critical or serious and > came to the conclusion it isn't. You and Adam were the ones to set it > to grave, so you must have had one of the three reasons above. > > If you really look at it (as I have done) you will find it hard to > justify the initial reflex of "RC bug" and most definitely of grave > status. This came a bit as a surprise to me as well. Please look again. (Oh and if you want Adam to look at it again, maybe you should be Ccing him.) > Apparently, the package already migrated to testing, so this is merely > an opportunity for me to learn more about policy now. Thank you so much for playing bug severity ping pong. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
