Bug#1144046: define term 'release critical'?
Simon Josefsson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <8733wexpyd.fsf__40863.0899315298$1786879889$gmane$org@josefsson.org> |
Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes: > Well, Policy requirements define what's release critical in general Where/How? Adding the term 'release critical' to where the concept is defined in Policy is what the bug report is about. There is no match for the keyword 'release critical' in the git repository, and I can't find it using the search entry here either: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/search.html?q=release+critical My patch adds the term 'release critical' to the first hit above, where I think the concept is defined but without using the term 'release critical'. If you prefer a footnote over my earlier patch, how about the attached version? Of course, as illustrated by the discussion with Andrey, I may be misunderstanding what the actual definition of 'release critical' is, or how the term is supposed to be used. My request is merely that the term is defined somewhere, if it actually has any definition that can be written down. It is fine to dismiss this, but maybe discussion helps. /Simon
0001-Mention-term-release-critical.patch
(text/x-diff, 1.2 KB)
From 56e47630c4a9ebf6094c32437e1b4f72abcf78a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 09:36:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Mention term 'release critical' --- policy/ch-scope.rst | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst index a279c26..4749b3b 100644 --- a/policy/ch-scope.rst +++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ describe the importance of each statement: [#]_ to these requirements will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. These statements correspond to the *critical*, *grave*, and *serious* bug severities (normally serious). They are - collectively called *Policy requirements*. + collectively called *Policy requirements*. [#]_ * The terms *should* and *should not*, and the adjective *recommended*, denote best practices. Non-conformance with these guidelines will @@ -102,6 +102,9 @@ about them. Compare RFC 2119. Note, however, that these words are used in a different way in this document. +.. [#] + Sometimes refered to as *release critical*. + .. _s1.2: New versions of this document -- 2.54.0
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQNoBAEWCgMQFiEEo8ychwudMQq61M8vUXIrCP5HRaIFAmqBn1oUHHNpbW9uQGpv c2Vmc3Nvbi5vcmfCHCYAmDMEXJLOtBYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdACIcrZIvhrxDBkK9f V+QlTmXxo2naObDuGtw58YaxlOu0JVNpbW9uIEpvc2Vmc3NvbiA8c2ltb25Aam9z ZWZzc29uLm9yZz6IlgQTFggAPgIbAwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgBYh BLHSvRN1vst4TPT4xNc89jjFPAa+BQJp4fWRBQkOa+rdAAoJENc89jjFPAa+hWIA /1lQvrJeGlQq50lP6tm99D1zDy7J1tQ3ha4x0Jx7rkFTAP9hpUKuTvm6m1fXyiZV YZlu2+Id/Dq3CIAZvNF+XEr2BLgzBFySz4EWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQOxTCIOaeXAx I2hIX4HK9bQTpNVei708oNr1Klm8qCGKiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQSx0r0Tdb7LeEz0 +MTXPPY4xTwGvgUCaeCW1wUJDmqLVgCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQSjzJyHC50xCrrUzy9R cisI/kdFogUCXJLPgQAKCRBRcisI/kdFoqdMAQCgH45aseZgIrwKOvUOA9QfsmeE 8GZHYNuFHmM9FEQS6AD6A4x5aYvoY6lo98pgtw2HPDhmcCXFItjXCrV4A0GmJA4J ENc89jjFPAa+s7AA+gIIHpBApDpcDj1sKhzDngmpvwQf0VkHme6s+EG7qSgpAQDe /XMrU0c0Pa3ji85cMqZhvzJOFI/soe662lzL0QY3Bbg4BFySz2oSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0AxlRumDW6nZY7A+VCfek9VpEx6PJmdJyYPt3lNHMd6HAMBCAeIfgQYFggA JgIbDBYhBLHSvRN1vst4TPT4xNc89jjFPAa+BQJp4JbXBQkOaottAAoJENc89jjF PAa+RNUA/2faQO/nFT06E+MlhlQdo/0chlQXC5TZMPTVvVBFwoLOAP9xLJK0ow5E jTzYJB4K810AL/Iv6PEOAEgA4cPTHVlbCQAKCRBRcisI/kdFopsQAP9QrYx10Vgh v1hy2CW83xrMiMojFLu4h8JzcwP4CDrfSgEA+eROMCt8l7YfOoWTjI3gjLI5xwch rpoYEJyp0GEAYA4= =tcRd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----