On 2009-11-29, Graham Percival wrote: > What's the feeling amongst developers about what should be ranked > as priority-Regression (and thus stop a release) ? In particular, > should *everything* that used to work -- even if it was by > accident? -- be ranked a Regression?
Maybe we could add labels indicating which release an issue blocks? This is what Mozilla does for their products. Like "2.14-blocker", "3.0-blocker", etc. as well as "Priority-Regression". > For example, > - markup \note in time signature: worked in 2.10, currently > Defect-Low. > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=628 If I'm reading this correctly, it worked in 2.8, not 2.10. As you can tell from the comments on this issue, a *proper* solution is going to be very involved, so I can't see this happening in the near future. This might get fixed before 2.16 (or whatever is after 2.14). > - Tie direction: worked in 2.10 (by accident?), currently > Enhancement-Low. > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=592 Not sure about this one. Either it worked in 2.10 by accident, or it is a regression in 2.11. I don't know enough about this code to make a call. > I don't particularly mind which way we decide, but I'd like it to > be consistent, and I'm going to insist that if something is > Priority-Regression, it blocks a release. IMO, regressions from 2.13 should get first priority and should block 2.14, but other regressions should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
