1 |
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:32:09 -0600 |
2 |
Martin Jackson <mjolnir@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Perhaps you should have explicitly stated in the bug that it was for |
4 |
> > security reasons and thus a priority. Make things easy for the arch |
5 |
> > teams -- if you have useful information like that, provide it in an |
6 |
> > easy to see place. Looking at that bug, I don't see anything |
7 |
> > indicating that there's any reason it should have been considered |
8 |
> > over more widely used packages. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Because setuptools is not widely used? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The sec bug was (and remains) linked as a blocker. Is that not |
13 |
> explicit or easy enough? |
14 |
|
15 |
When arch people get dozens to hundreds of bug emails per day, no, it's |
16 |
not. A simple "this is now a security issue, see bug blah" makes it an |
17 |
awful lot easier for arch people to prioritise -- emails that merely |
18 |
show blockers added or removed tend to get ignored because a) they're |
19 |
almost always meaningless changes from the arch team's perspective, and |
20 |
b) the bug email doesn't convey any useful information on its own |
21 |
anyway. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |