Zachary Harris <zacharyhar...@hotmail.com> writes: > OK, I'm tracking with you now. I'm sorry for my own misunderstanding. > I was getting the impression that my request to document the > "non-compliant status quo" was going to be relegated to a "wish" that > would most likely be utterly ignored, and that didn't seem right. Having > open issues, but with clear documentation, is the name of the game.
Ah, no. It's just that anything that represents a change in the existing documented practice uses a wishlist severity for Policy since the higher severity are reserved for places where what Policy says is contradictory, deceptive, or simply wrong. That's not the case here; the clarification that you're proposing is effectively a weakening of something that Policy (sort of implicitly) tells one to do right now. Anyway, order of processing of bugs only very vaguely follows severity levels. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
