On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]: > > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the > > serious bug description... > > Which do you mean? Please read the Etch RC policy. It tells: > | In addition to the issues listed in this document, an issue is release > | critical if it: > | [...] > | * in the maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable > | for release > > So, what does the Etch RC policy remove from the bugs.d.o description?
'is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or "required" directive), or' > > Anyways, I've always thought the bts severity levels and release > > criticality were orthogonal things. i.e. it's more complicated than > > just saying "critical, grave and serious levels are RC". > > That is wrong. > > > There are > > important or even normal issues (as per definition of the severity > > levels) that are more release critical than serious (again, as per > > definition of the severity levels) bugs. > > Wrong. A bug is release-critical :<=> the bug has severity serious, > grave, critical and has not been given an excemption by the release team You may have missed the "thought" part of the sentence. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]