Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 5, 2001

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:00:08AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
> Bug stamp-out list for Jan  5 05:13 (CST)
> 
> Total number of release-critical bugs: 482

I thought aj introduced the "serious" severity so that "important" bugs
wouldn't be considered release-critical anymore, but it looks like bugscan
doesn't know that important bugs aren't RC.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux|If ignorance is bliss,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |is omniscience hell?
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp6z8NyZIYcj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 5, 2001

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> I thought aj introduced the "serious" severity so that "important" bugs
> wouldn't be considered release-critical anymore, but it looks like bugscan
> doesn't know that important bugs aren't RC.

Thanks, fixed:

@priorities = ("serious", "grave", "critical");

Those will be considered release-critical now.

Wichert.

-- 
   
 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 5, 2001

[Colin Watson]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:00:08AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
>> Bug stamp-out list for Jan  5 05:13 (CST)
>> 
>> Total number of release-critical bugs: 482
>
>I thought aj introduced the "serious" severity so that "important" bugs
>wouldn't be considered release-critical anymore, but it looks like bugscan
>doesn't know that important bugs aren't RC.

I notice that some porters are still filing "can't build from source"
bugs as 'important'; I realize the developers-reference package hasn't
been updated yet, although the version in CVS has. A lot of such
'important' bugs are going to need to be upgraded to 'serious'.

-- 
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 5, 2001

[Ben Collins]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 05:02:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:00:08AM -0600, BugScan reporter wrote:
> >> Bug stamp-out list for Jan  5 05:13 (CST)
> >> 
> >> Total number of release-critical bugs: 482
> >
> >I thought aj introduced the "serious" severity so that "important" bugs
> >wouldn't be considered release-critical anymore, but it looks like bugscan
> >doesn't know that important bugs aren't RC.
> 
> I notice that some porters are still filing "can't build from source"
> bugs as 'important'; I realize the developers-reference package hasn't
> been updated yet, although the version in CVS has. A lot of such
> 'important' bugs are going to need to be upgraded to 'serious'.

Well, packages that cannot be built wont be put into testing, basically
because the version isn't compiled on all archs. So it wont be released
anyway. IMO, build failures on non-release archs (those not in testing)
should be considered "important", while build failures on release archs
(those in testing) should be considered serious.

Ben

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 5, 2001

[Laurent Bonnaud]

Hi,

would it be possible to clarify the title of this post by adding for
which distribution it is about: "testing" or "unstable" ?  I guess it
is for "unstable", but packages in "unstable" are not meant to be
released, only packages in "testing".

Even if "testing" does not import packages with RC bugs from
"unstable", RC bugs may be found *after* the package inclusion into
"testing".  So it might be useful to have this post for both "testing"
and "unstable".

How hard would it be to implement ?

-- 
Laurent.