On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 07:42:01AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > >> IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should > >> get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like > >> `priority'. > > > > I don't know if they're as visible as #612, but I find #379 and > > #427 personally aggravating. I think those two bugs currently > > prevent LilyPond from looking truly professional. > > I fully agree. So we have at least three candidates which deserve a > `priority' tag.
I disagree, although not seriously. The current policy is that only crashes and regressions get higher priority; everything else is medium, low, or postponed. If we listed those bugs as higher priority, would it change anything? Would Chris work on it before Aug? Would somebody else pick up that work and do it sooner? We can say that we won't release a new stable as long as we have high or regression bugs. I don't see the benefit of listing certain bugs as "medium-plus" or "medium but important". If we have more people fixing bugs, with more activity, resulting in an actual decrease in issue numbers, then I would be /delighted/ to revisit this policy. I would *love* to declare that we would fix all "medium" bugs, and reduce non-"important" bugs to low, or whatever. To put some hard numbers on it: I propose that we revisit the bug classification system if we get below 150 issues and stay below 150 issues for a month. Until the Frogs have made that much progress -- until we have a regular group of bugfixers (10 people doing 1 per week would achieve this goal in a few months) -- I don't see the point significantly changing the issue tags. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
