On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:22:33AM +0100, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On Aug 2, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Graham Percival wrote: > > > * any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks like > > or which options are given. > > I like the first one, but I think the second needs to be tweaked > a bit. If you run LilyPond on a PDF file on accident, I find
I think we should still exit gracefully, even given completely junk input. Many programs achieve this; some experts in user interface call this "cat testing" (well, ok, "fuzz testing"), while security experts call this "a security risk". There is a long history of "good programs never crash". I think we should take part in that. > I like this classification scheme, but even if it were fixed, it > would not solve the issue you address in the preface to this GOP > - namely, the small number of developers with respect to the > large number of bugs. Recruitment is not a problem; we already turn away / waste more volunteers than we have. The first step to recruiting new contributors is to stop turning away the existing ones, and treating label:maintainability issues as serious will go a long way towards that. Improvements to our development process won't be finished until the end 2011; I think it's irresponsible to actively recruit people until then. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
