Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1022111

Bug#968438: Should this really be RC?

From	Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist
Subject	Bug#968438: Should this really be RC?
Date	2020-08-19 18:10 +0200
Message-ID	<AFyP0-4W0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<AFyvD-4Af-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <AFyvD-4Af-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AFyvD-4Af-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <AFyvD-4Af-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	The Debian Project

Show all headers | View raw

On 2020-08-19 23:42, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I have updated okular and, while the bug is important I fail to see it
> as an RC bug. Most of okular's functionality is still there and
> working perfectly.
> 
> I am not downgrading the bug severity because Pino did a first review
> and I might be missing something else.

Since it was a new release just uploaded to unstable, I marked it RC to 
halt it from migrating to testing, at least until you had a chance to 
review the problem.  It's only the one piece of functionality that's 
broken, but it's broken bad. (And for me, it's the functionality that I 
like to use okular for).

I'm happy for Pino to make the judgement to downgrade severity if you 
and he thinks the new version is fit to go into testing.

Drew

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2020-08-19 18:10 +0200
  Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Pino Toscano <pino@debian.org> - 2020-08-19 18:30 +0200
    Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 16:50 +0200
      Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2020-08-21 06:10 +0200

csiph-web