On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:13 +0200, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:38:49 +
Berni Elbourn be...@elbournb.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
Andres Salomon wrote:
2. Severities
Many submitters believe that their bug meets one of the following
criteria for high severity. We
Hi Ben,
Ack on everything below. Some comments are below.
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:14:54 +0100
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing? I also left
some questions in
Andres Salomon wrote:
2. Severities
Many submitters believe that their bug meets one of the following
criteria for high severity. We interpret them as follows and will
downgrade as appropriate:
'critical: makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole
system) break...'
The bug must
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:38:49 +
Berni Elbourn be...@elbournb.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
Andres Salomon wrote:
2. Severities
Many submitters believe that their bug meets one of the following
criteria for high severity. We interpret them as follows and will
downgrade as appropriate:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing? I also left
some questions in square brackets.
Ben.
Thanks Ben, comments below.
---
1. Required
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:10 -0600, dann frazier wrote:
[...]
2. Severities
Many submitters believe that their bug meets one of the following
criteria for high severity. We interpret them as follows and will
downgrade as appropriate:
Though infrequent, we do sometimes need to upgrade
On 2009-10-17, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
--=-pYXoGsnLyULe5CAiSWG8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing?
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 17:14 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing? I also left
some questions in square brackets.
There is now one week left of the comment period.
Ben.
--
Ben
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-10-17 17:14]:
1. Required information
Submitters are expected to run reportbug or other tool that runs our
'bug' script under the kernel version in question. The response to
reports without this information should be a request to follow-up using
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:21:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Another exception that should be added here is for devices which have
well-defined hardware components. For example, I don't need hardware
information for a QNAP TS-209 because it's a consumer NAS machine and
you cannot change
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing? I also left
some questions in square brackets.
Ben.
---
1. Required information
Submitters are expected to run reportbug or other tool that runs our
'bug' script under
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 17:14 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I've drafted a policy based on what I believe to be best practice.
Please comment - is anything wrong, or anything missing? I also left
some questions in square brackets.
I was supposed to set a deadline for comments, so I'll say 31st
I'm new here. And all this looks good to me.
I particularly value clarification to try and use reportbug on all
submissions. Already fallen foul of that one ;-) sorry.
Please be aware though that in time constrained situations (real users
wanting there systems back etc) we may not be able to
13 matches
Mail list logo
