Comment 9 for bug 1649931

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 09:43:48PM -0000, Ryan Harper wrote:
> I don't disagree (that saying few folks impacted means low).

> This portion was split out from the previous systemd SRU


> in which the changes were classified in the same way, so I was coping over
> the assessment done by pitti and Foundations with which I agree.

> I'd be happy if someone else could comment on whether they disagree with
> the assessment.

> IMO the risk is low:

The point here is that 'regression potential' is not meant to be a scalar,
it's meant to be a description of where regressions are possible so that we
can assess whether additional testing is needed to guard against those

And also to ensure that the SRU submitter has carefully thought about this
question, since going through that exercise usually results in a better SRU.