On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 08:08:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > But if the bug severity is supposed to be fixed and objective, > and RCness is separate, I am confused why the xutils bug was > _upgraded_ to serious, and these other serious bugs are > downgraded. (We already have bugscan to prevent the count from > getting confusing due to all these serious but not rc bugs).
The "Priority mismatch" bugs were closed, not downgraded, and that was done because they're already being tracked outside of the BTS in a much more convenient way. One problem with them is that we simply can't fix many of them (the hppa libstdc++ bugs) -- it's more important to have i386 not have non-standard packages marked as standard than to have hppa's priorities consistent. Another problem is that to have the bugs fixed, ftpmaster needs to handle them, and having 80 bugs reassigned to ftpmaster over the next couple of days is unhelpful in the extreme. Another problem, really, is that that clause should never have been made a "must" in the first place -- it led existing practice rather than following it (see bug 64437, greping for "not depend on packages" for historical context, if you like). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
