> > Hmm, IIRC this was one case that *really happened*, and I
was trying to
> > catch the flavor of our IRC discussion at the time - my memory is that
> > we were willing to accept such bugs as blockers, but we'd maybe be more
> > likely to waive them for only affecting a small amount of users or
> > being workaroundable or something like that.
> If the explanation sounds like this, I'm actually very OK with that
> :) I'd probably avoid saying "less important", because then it sounds
> like an advice to waive everything. I think it's equally important,
> it just has different use cases. Maybe we could say something like "a
> slightly different standard of judgement may be applied to
> conditional violations in live environments, as the use cases of live
> systems and installed systems are not the same". For example, if
> shutdown didn't work properly and on some systems actually caused
> restart, that could be seen as a lesser problem on Lives.
OK, I've added another sentence to the footnote to try and clarify this
some more. Good to go now?
Thanks, good to go.