----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith OHara" <k-ohara5...@oco.net>
To: <bug-lilypond@gnu.org>
Cc: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 3:49 AM
Subject: desired behaviour
Dear Phil and the bug squadders,
Is the desired behaviour(*) of LilyPond information that you want to have
in the tracker?
I notice that items get fixed faster when the desired output is clear.
Knowing this, users have motivation to clearly describe what they want,
and might use LilyPond to construct an image of what they want, maybe
producing a workaround, which might be a prototype for the real solution.
With desired output defined, programmers can more easily tell if
attacking the issue would be an enjoyable addition to their hobby. The
more often the issue affects users, the more likely somebody will post
desired output, thus naturally making it more likely to be fixed sooner.
Tinkerers can more easily contribute to areas where they know the LilyPond
engine, but not the application area (e.g., me and the lyrics spacing
issues). People other than original bug-finder might be the ones who
state the desired output. Disagreement about just what is desired can be
ironed out, if required, before programming work is started.
-Keith
[*] Note my use of, to me, foreign spelling in a transparent attempt to
curry favor.
It seems to me that it would be a good idea to have some sort of
illustration of desired behaviour as well as errant behaviour in bug
reports. However, we need to beware of putting extra work on the bug squad,
or stopping users reporting bugs simply because they don't have the skills
to produce a view of what "good" looks like. So we would need instructions
along the lines of "please ask the reporter to provide an example of what
good looks like if they can. But if they can't, don't worry."
Agree?
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
