Bug reports and severity

[Andreas Barth]

* Robert Millan (rmh@aybabtu.com) [050619 17:47]:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:27:13PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:18:27PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:29:05PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > Any thoughts on such a policy?
> > > 
> > > I assume we're talking about FTBFS bugs which theoricaly should be reported
> > > as serious (we have a few GNU/kFreeBSD bugs in the style of #307475, too).
> > > 
> > > When Marcus Brinkmann started the GNU/Hurd port, he started using the "serious"
> > > severity for FTBFS bugs, but this was disruptive wrt the release process (e.g.
> > > britney) so they switched to important.
> > 
> > important is indeed the correct severity here. Bugs that only affect
> > arches (and lets assume for the moment that kfreebsd-* and stuff are arches
> > until our tools can handle it otherwise) that aren't released and aren't
> > planned to be released aren't RC. Once an arch is considered for
> > inclusion in release they can be upgraded (which is probably happening
> > to the AMD64 specific bugs soon, when it is finally in the archive).
> 
> Please correct me if i'm wrong, but from reading the BTS docs [1] and from
> comments from other people I got the impression that bug severities and RC-ness
> are orthogonal, and this is why {sarge,etch}-ignore tags were created.
> 
> So to address my question more directly:  is it acceptable from a release
> managing perspective to use serious severity for an FTBFS with the proper tag
> to indicate it's not RC?

There is no tag for that, and there is a good reason. The difference
between important and serious is that serious means "release critical"
and important means "not release critical".

So, the answer is no, and that there is no such tag.


Cheers,
Andi