On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If
all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the
severity, then I'd pay attention to it. Right now only the security
team gets it right, it seems.
> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Looking through more than eight and a half years of stabilisation bug
mail, I can definitively confirm that you are wrong. It wasn't always
this way and it changed very recently. Again, the status quo is no
reason to not improve the status quo.
> > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
>
> Did you read the message? The point is you're supposed to add that
> yourself. It's not a STABLEREQ until you add arches.
Yes, I've read its nearly useless contents way too many times. It is
awful. It could probably be improved and refreshed in even more ways
than I and others have suggested so far. It could include actual
information, for starters, instead of things that should probably be
in some policy document or guide.
Adding STABLEREQ can't be done through the bugzilla API until after the
bug is filed, which was the technical reason it isn't done, I've been
told. That's a technical problem we can solve.
jer
