On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:29:07PM +0200, Dominique Devriese wrote:
>...
> Clearly, the highest severity that this bug can arguably qualify for
> is "serious" if and only if Chris Cheney thinks so, and important
> otherwise. Chris has clearly shown that he did not at the time think
> so, so I am downgrading this bug to important. It's up to him to
> change it to serious if he thinks it deserves that. I hope we can now
> stop playing pingpong with the severity ?
As said in the part of the mail you skipped:
Your RM reopened a similar (grave) bug I sent that covered a similar
issue.
Chris uploaded a new version of kdelibs 6 days after my bug report.
Why did he downgrade it instead of simply fixing the issue via a
conflict?
What about "stop playing pingpong with the severity" and fix it instead?
> > In the sense "must be fixed, before the new kdelibs enters testing,
> > or apollon in testing will be broken".
>
> The only thing that's keeping the new apollon ( which, according to
> its changelog has the real fix for the problem ) from entering testing
> is its dependency on kdelibs. Thus, there is little chance that the
> new kdelibs would enter sarge and the new apollon wouldn't.
>...
Imagine a new upload of apollon to unstable, a RC bug in apollon, or
many other reasons like apollon not being built on one architecture.
> > No change in apollon can prevent the breakage of apollon in testing
> > if a new kdelibs enters testing before a new apollon.
>
> True, but this situation will be fixed immediately when the new
> apollon enters testing as well. The only thing that's keeping it from
> doing that is its dependency on kdelibs4. Thus, when kdelibs4 will
> enter testing, so will apollon.
As explained above, this statement is wrong.
> cheers
> domi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
