On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > > Section 7.1: "behaviour" --> "behavior"; U.S. spelling
Oops, yeah. Ok, I've "fixed" this. (I've been trying to get in practice writing British, since my thesis has to be written in British, instead of the customary Canadian wherein we can choose whichever spelling we want. :) > Section 7.2: Type -- IMO, Defect is when LilyPond doesn't do what it says it > does. Enhancement is when you want LilyPond to do something new. But if you > don't want to change the statements in the docs, that's fine with me. Hmm... I was trying to make the point that a Defect should only be in the output of the binary, as opposed to a convert-ly problem or doc problem. It's certainly true that we might not know whether an initial problem report is a Defect, Documentation, or Script (i.e. if there's some questionable output from lilypond-book)... but the "real" Type should be the thing that we asymptotically move towards during the discussion of that issue. I'm not wild about saying "a defect is when the output differs from the documentation", since that makes it really unclear as to whether somebody should work on the docs or debug scheme. The Enhancement bit says "if in doubt, make it an enhancement". Beyond that, I'm not certain how to clarify these points, either in our "understood" policy or written policy. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
