Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
Hi, On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > I don't see why I should not change the severity of a report against a > package I'm not maintaining if the severity looks incorrect and the > maintainance team didn't state anything about the severity. If you were > basing that on something, please let me know. Consider that changing severities of bug reports is not your business and they are not considered a positive contribution of your own. The release team will lower severities >= serious if they are over-inflated, the maintainer can do so as well. If you believe a severity to be wrong, please state so in the bug log and let the maintainer change it if he wishes and that's it. You make us loose valuable time arguing on severities. I hope you can find some better way of contributing to the Debian project because your current stance on handling bug severities is not very much appreciated. > In any case, considering what you wrote, I'll refrain from changing the > severity of reports against dpkg, which means I will not downgrade this > report even if Kurt does not answer timely. You're not in a position where you can request/expect timely responses. People have the right to ignore you because you're not the maintainer and they don't believe your contributions to be useful. As long as your contributions are NOT backed by some solid technical skills, this won't change. This doesn't apply only to dpkg but also to all Debian packages. If "bug-triager" is something that appeals to you, I'd suggest to concentrate on a single package and cooperate up-front with the maintainer and decide of a strategy to clean up the BTS. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007 07:19, Guillem Jover a écrit : > On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 21:22:00 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > severity 432893 important > > thanks > > > > Le mercredi 29 août 2007 12:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > > Hi Kurt, > > > > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it > > > > wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's > > > > severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's > > > > unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that > > > > the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other > > > > people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages > > > > than ghc, which appears fixed. > > > > > > There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both > > > RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that > > > generated the maintainer scripts. > > > > > > The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't > > > see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been > > > fixed. > > > OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so > > I'm downgrading to important again. > > Sorry but that you are convinced or not does not matter, you should not > be changing the severity in the first place for a package you are not > maintaining, (you are not part of the release team either, nor the bug > submitter). I don't see why I should not change the severity of a report against a package I'm not maintaining if the severity looks incorrect and the maintainance team didn't state anything about the severity. If you were basing that on something, please let me know. In any case, considering what you wrote, I'll refrain from changing the severity of reports against dpkg, which means I will not downgrade this report even if Kurt does not answer timely.
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 21:22:00 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > severity 432893 important > thanks > > Le mercredi 29 août 2007 12:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > Hi Kurt, > > > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it > > > wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's > > > severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's > > > unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that > > > the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other > > > people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages > > > than ghc, which appears fixed. > > > > There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both > > RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that > > generated the maintainer scripts. > > > > The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't > > see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been > > fixed. > OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so > I'm downgrading to important again. Sorry but that you are convinced or not does not matter, you should not be changing the severity in the first place for a package you are not maintaining, (you are not part of the release team either, nor the bug submitter). > Do not upgrade the severity to serious again, as this bug is not a > policy violation, unless you have evidence that the dpkg maintainance > team considers it serious. Feel free to ask the maintainers to > upgrade the severity to serious. I'd appreciate if you stop messing with the bug reports status w/o prior consent. Feel free to send comments to the bugs, though. regards, guillem
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
severity 432893 serious thanks On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:22:00PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so I'm > downgrading to important again. Do not upgrade the severity to serious again, > as this bug is not a policy violation, unless you have evidence that the dpkg > maintainance team considers it serious. Feel free to ask the maintainers to > upgrade the severity to serious. Please do not change the severity of this bug unless the dpkg maintainers say so. There are more reasons than policy violations for a bug to be RC. But the behaviour of dpkg is even documented in policy, so I suggest you read policy again. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 432893 serious Bug#432893: dpkg: Failed install followed by failed remove results in installed state Severity set to `serious' from `important' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
severity 432893 important thanks Le mercredi 29 août 2007 12:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > Hi Kurt, > > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it > > wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's > > severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's > > unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that > > the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other > > people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages > > than ghc, which appears fixed. > > There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both > RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that > generated the maintainer scripts. > > The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't > see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been > fixed. OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so I'm downgrading to important again. Do not upgrade the severity to serious again, as this bug is not a policy violation, unless you have evidence that the dpkg maintainance team considers it serious. Feel free to ask the maintainers to upgrade the severity to serious.
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > Hi Kurt, > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it wasn't. > Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's severity. While > the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's unlikely that the dpkg > part of the bug is considered serious, now that the report is more than 2 > months old and there are no reports of other people experiencing the bug, or > reports of the bug with other packages than ghc, which appears fixed. There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that generated the maintainer scripts. The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been fixed. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
Le mercredi 29 août 2007 03:28, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > severity 432893 serious > thanks > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:42:03AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.7 > > > severity 432893 important > > > > Bug#432893: dpkg: Failed install followed by failed remove results in > > installed state Severity set to `important' from `serious' > > Please explain why you think this is not a release critical bug. > > You seem to have gone and changed, mostly lowered, the severity of > various bugs on packages. As far as I can see, you're not the > maintainer of those packages. So I'm just going to set the severity of > this one back. Hi Kurt, I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages than ghc, which appears fixed. You seem to have omitted to send the mail to control. If you still believe this is a serious bug, feel free ask the dpkg maintainers to upgrade the severity.
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > For the record, Philippe Cloutier alias Filipus Klutiero (and > chealer on IRC) was already banned from the BTS control interface. I > don't know if his ban has been lifted or if he uses another email. > CCings BTS admins for info. I removed the ban a few days ago, but if this sort of issue continues, I'll reasses my decision. Don Armstrong -- This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > severity 432893 serious > thanks > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:42:03AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.7 > > > severity 432893 important > > Bug#432893: dpkg: Failed install followed by failed remove results in > > installed state > > Severity set to `important' from `serious' > > Please explain why you think this is not a release critical bug. > > You seem to have gone and changed, mostly lowered, the severity of > various bugs on packages. As far as I can see, you're not the > maintainer of those packages. So I'm just going to set the severity of > this one back. For the record, Philippe Cloutier alias Filipus Klutiero (and chealer on IRC) was already banned from the BTS control interface. I don't know if his ban has been lifted or if he uses another email. CCings BTS admins for info. Filipus, please stop changing severities without the consent of the maintainer. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#432893: Processed: severity of 432893 is important
severity 432893 serious thanks On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:42:03AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.7 > > severity 432893 important > Bug#432893: dpkg: Failed install followed by failed remove results in > installed state > Severity set to `important' from `serious' Please explain why you think this is not a release critical bug. You seem to have gone and changed, mostly lowered, the severity of various bugs on packages. As far as I can see, you're not the maintainer of those packages. So I'm just going to set the severity of this one back. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
