Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [hidden email]:

> severity 397973 serious
Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the raid flag to partitions.
Severity set to `serious' from `important'

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Frans Pop-3
severity 397973 important
thanks

On Friday 12 January 2007 10:33, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the
> raid flag to partitions. Severity set to `serious' from `important'

I don't agree that this issue is RC. It does not match any of the
criteria.

1) This issue does not actually break anything. It just makes it
impossible to make use of an optional feature (software RAID) during
installation.

2) The issue affects only a limited group of users as it is architecture
specific: software RAID support in partman works just fine on at least
i386, amd64, sparc and hppa. I'm not sure about other architectures, but
at least we have no reports of breakage there.

3) There is no regression, or at least, I do not see how there can be as
software RAID support and general partman code has not been touched at
that level during Etch development. This rather looks like an incomplete
implementation of software RAID support for this particular architecture.
As such, and since there currently (unfortunately) is no lead partman
maintainer, it is primarily the responsibility of the PowerPC community
to provide the missing bits and pieces needed to implement the support.

So, IMO as D-I RM, this issue does not make partman-md "unsuitable for
release".

Note for future reference: this BR is possibly related to:
http://bugs.debian.org/392764

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Processed: Re: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [hidden email]:

> severity 397973 important
Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the raid flag to partitions.
Severity set to `important' from `serious'

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Sven Luther
In reply to this post by Frans Pop-3
severity 397973 serious
# 12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID install
# should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?
thanks
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:

>
> On Friday 12 January 2007 10:33, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the
> > raid flag to partitions. Severity set to `serious' from `important'
>
> I don't agree that this issue is RC. It does not match any of the
> criteria.
>
> 1) This issue does not actually break anything. It just makes it
> impossible to make use of an optional feature (software RAID) during
> installation.
>
> 2) The issue affects only a limited group of users as it is architecture
> specific: software RAID support in partman works just fine on at least
> i386, amd64, sparc and hppa. I'm not sure about other architectures, but
> at least we have no reports of breakage there.
>
> 3) There is no regression, or at least, I do not see how there can be as
> software RAID support and general partman code has not been touched at
> that level during Etch development. This rather looks like an incomplete
> implementation of software RAID support for this particular architecture.
> As such, and since there currently (unfortunately) is no lead partman
> maintainer, it is primarily the responsibility of the PowerPC community
> to provide the missing bits and pieces needed to implement the support.
>
> So, IMO as D-I RM, this issue does not make partman-md "unsuitable for
> release".

12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID install
should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?

What else is there to say ...

> Note for future reference: this BR is possibly related to:
> http://bugs.debian.org/392764

Unrelated, this was, to the best of my knowledge, a separate bug, which i
investigated and fixed, and colin had already fixed for ubuntu and commented
on it later on. It is unrelated to this bug.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Processed: Re: Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [hidden email]:

> severity 397973 serious
Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the raid flag to partitions.
Severity set to `serious' from `important'

> # 12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID install
> # should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Frans Pop-3
In reply to this post by Sven Luther
On Friday 12 January 2007 17:58, Sven Luther wrote:
> 12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID
> install should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?
>
> What else is there to say ...

I am not going to fight this war, but I also refuse to treat this BR as RC
for the release of D-I. I have given my reasons for it.

People are of course free to provide new arguments, or, even better,
provide a fix for the issue in time for RC2. Whether a fix will be
accepted depends on the patch, provided test results, and our estimate of
the risk of regressions.

Leaving management of the severity to RMs from now on.

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Steve Langasek
In reply to this post by Frans Pop-3
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2007 10:33, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the
> > raid flag to partitions. Severity set to `serious' from `important'

> I don't agree that this issue is RC. It does not match any of the
> criteria.

> 1) This issue does not actually break anything. It just makes it
> impossible to make use of an optional feature (software RAID) during
> installation.

> 2) The issue affects only a limited group of users as it is architecture
> specific: software RAID support in partman works just fine on at least
> i386, amd64, sparc and hppa. I'm not sure about other architectures, but
> at least we have no reports of breakage there.

AIUI, this bug does make partman-md unusable for most powerpc users, who can
only use powermac partition tables for compatibility with their firmware.
That alone, IMHO, qualifies it as an RC bug; if a package is built and
unusable on a given arch, it has a grave bug on that arch.  Being
arch-specific is not a reason to discount a bug as non-RC.

Separately, I feel that md support is important enough to enough users that
I would not be comfortable releasing an installer with etch that couldn't
handle software raid at install time; I imagine you would agree that if this
happened to the installer as a whole, it would be an unacceptable regression
against sarge and therefore unreleasable.  I think for the same reason that
we shouldn't be too hasty to release with md support broken on one of our
release archs.

> 3) There is no regression, or at least, I do not see how there can be as
> software RAID support and general partman code has not been touched at
> that level during Etch development. This rather looks like an incomplete
> implementation of software RAID support for this particular architecture.
> As such, and since there currently (unfortunately) is no lead partman
> maintainer, it is primarily the responsibility of the PowerPC community
> to provide the missing bits and pieces needed to implement the support.

That it's the responsibility of the powerpc porters to fix it doesn't make
it less of an RC bug.

Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[hidden email]                                   http://www.debian.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...

Frans Pop-3
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 12:25, you wrote:
> Separately, I feel that md support is important enough to enough users
> that I would not be comfortable releasing an installer with etch that
> couldn't handle software raid at install time; I imagine you would
> agree that if this happened to the installer as a whole, it would be an
> unacceptable regression against sarge and therefore unreleasable.  I
> think for the same reason that we shouldn't be too hasty to release
> with md support broken on one of our release archs.

But AFAIK it is _not_ a regression.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]