----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca>
To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>
Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: critical issues
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
"
Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below)
against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
developed for this version. This does not apply where the
"regression" occurred because a feature was removed deliberately -
this is not a bug.
"
I'm not certain what "regression against a fix developed for this
version" means. If somebody fixes a minor bug in 2.13.15, and
that fix doesn't work in 2.13.17, I don't think that should be a
Critical bug. If the fix works in 2.14.0 but doesn't work in
2.14.2 or 2.15.2, then I _would_ consider that a critical bug,
under the usual "regression against the past two stable versions"
rule.
That was new wording I was under the impression we'd agreed the last time
this was discussed. You said "I can't tell if there was a difference here
from the current
version, but this looks fine." My intention was that, even if it was a
minor bug, then someone had put work in recently to fix it. If someone else
has just unpicked that, then this a Bad Thing and should be corrected.
At the bottom of this section, add:
"
Note that these are initial classifications and can be subject to
change by others in the development team. For example, a regression
against an old stable version which hasn't been noticed for a long
time and which in unlikely to get fixed could be downgraded from
Priority-Critical by one of the programmers.
"
This means that the "regression since the last two stable
versions" becomes an ad-hoc programmer decision, rather than an
official policy decision. Couldn't we keep the "for example,
while developing 2.13, any regression since 2.12.x or 2.10.x
counts as a critical issue" sentence? I think that one sentence
with exact numbers would provide much more clarity than terms like
"this version" or "previous two stable versions".
On December 30 you said:
"In particular,
I'd fine telling / expecting bug squad members to make something
Critical if it's a regression, period. Just as long as a
programmer can come by and say "wait, we broke that back in
2005... sure, it's still a bug, but we're not going to delay a
stable release for it. I'm setting it to priority-medium"."
My wording reflects that?
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel