tag 802501 + wontfix
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertag 802501 = normative stalled
thanks
Hello,
In #904558 I asked the T.C. for advice about how to move #802501
forward. Their ultimate response was to recommend that a working group
of developers come up with some method, other than exiting nonzero, for
a maintscript to indicate that it failed to restart services. Let me
take this opportunity to thank all those who were involved in #904558.
In this message, I seek to explain my understanding of what the closing
of T.C. bug #904558 means for debian-policy bug #802501, and those
merged with it. Apologies for the length. I wanted this general sort
of reasoning to be recorded somewhere for reference in future
discussions.
~ ~ ~
When the Policy Changes Process fails to establish consensus, we have a
few options. If we think that consensus hasn't been established only
because no-one has volunteered to come up with an adequately detailed
response to the problem uncovered by the filing and discussion of the
bug, and the bug has been open for a while with no evidence of anyone
working on it, we (the Policy Editors) will often just close the bug.
We don't want such things to stick around, clogging up the list of open
issues in a way that's demotivating. This is the 'obsolete' usertag.
If we think that consensus hasn't been established because there are
good arguments on all sides, but we (the Policy Editors) additionally
think that argument to determine the very best solution is less
important right now than settling on one of the possible solutions
rather than remaining in further discussion, then we can refer the bug
to the T.C. to make a call between the competing options. This was, I
think, the intended purpose of the 'ctte' usertag, but we haven't been
using it.
Finally, if we don't want to refer the bug to the T.C. -- generally
because it's not important enough -- but we think that closing the bug
would be counterproductive because someone else will just open a new bug
raising the same issue again at some near point in time, we can just
leave the bug open, as a kind of placeholder to hopefully reduce the
number of duplicate bugs filed. I just added a 'stalled' usertag for
this case.
The 'obsolete', 'ctte' and 'stalled' usertags are meant to be used in
addition to the 'wontfix' tag.
~ ~ ~
In #904558, I did not ask the T.C. to rule on what maintscripts should
do when they fail to restart a service. Rather, I asked them to weigh
in on the decision between the options described above, given that the
Policy Changes Process had failed to achieve consensus. However, in the
message closing #904558, the T.C. indicated that they declined to issue
a ruling about what maintscripts should do when they fail to restart a
service. So the second option described above, corresponding to the
'ctte' usertag, has been taken off the table.
That leaves us with the question of whether to leave #802501 open, in
the absence of the possibility of closing it by having the T.C. make a
call. Given that this bug has already been filed (at least) twice, I
think it would be best for us to leave it open. So I'm tagging
wontfix+stalled.
~ ~ ~
In filing #904558, I made an alternative suggestion to the above:
> As a Policy delegate I want to move this issue along, and I can see
> three ways of doing that:
>
> 1. write a patch to explicitly state in Policy that what happens when a
>service (re)start fails in a maintscript is left up to package
>maintainer discretion, and close the bugs
> [...]
I no longer think this would be useful enough to have in Policy, but I'd
like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
