2009/7/5 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > 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?
IMSO (S stands for "Sorry"), the main point is less to fix new bugs than firstly to make sure people who have begun fixing a bug actually end up having fixed said bug. That's not about priority, that's about not losing patches, no matter how poorly coded or documented or relevant they may be. One thing we (meaning, a dedicated and reliable BugMeister...) could do to make sure patches don't go ignored, is mark issues as "Started" whenever a patch is posted and not applied. Regards, Valentin _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
