At 2020-10-10T18:21:31-0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > I agree that there's enough active development that groff should have > a more frequent release cycle than it has of late (though I understand > the lack of manpower to spearhead this).
There is a theory that a more frequent release cycle leads to early detection of regressions that are difficult to resolve (perhaps because their implementors wandered off in the meantime), but I think it's unproven. ;-) > I think any open bugs that include a patch should have that patch > applied or rejected (either as WONTFIX or with reasons given why the > patch needs improvement). Yes. > Several are hanging there in limbo, not applied but with no feedback > on whether they have deficiencies or simply haven't been looked at > yet. (In particular, #57638 documents a regression introduced in > v1.22.4 and includes a patch to unregress it.) It seems that bug > reports with patches ought to be the lowest-hanging fruit on the > savannah tree. Can you prepare a list of these? Are they the ones already tagged with "[PATCH]" in the summary, or a subset thereof? When browsing the bug list I tend to get distracted by problems that look easy to resolve, then turn out to be more challenging, and predicated on some aspect of groff I don't understand. I fall down the well of research, and then end up writing a documentation patch, whereupon I notice an _adjacent_ inaccuracy, and it's really all just a random walk from there. I'll have a look at #57638 today (UTC+1100). Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature