Interesting comments

[John Summerfield]

Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:34 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 08:52 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah. There's a program that is supposed to respond to button-presses on a 
>>>> scanner. buttond or some such.
>>>> Its presence doesn't much affect the release, but in the context of 
>>>> _that application_ I'd classify it as critical, a release blocker and 
>>>> simply omit it unless someone (the packager?) actually tested it and 
>>>> made it work.
>>> Well, I'd classify it as priority low, severity critical. I don't see
>>> why it should block a release. Sure, it's crappy code, but it's not
>> It wouldn't block the release of anything more than itself;-)
> 
> Oh. Well I'm not talking General Bug Tracking Theory here. I'm talking
> about Fedora, and the only thing we really 'release' is distributions.
> We (triage team) shouldn't be getting into the business of whether or
> not a packager should be pushing his packages, that's too fine grained
> for us...

At some point, there is someone (or some group) that decides what goes 
out. If this package surfaced as a "candidate release blocker," a 
reasonable resolution would be to drop the package. That is what I 
expected to happen - the quality of the release would be higher without 
it. Of course, of the offending package was the kernel, the resolution 
would be different, it might be reversion to an earlier version of the 
package, it might delay the release.



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)