On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 07:34:37PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote: > 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?
The previous policy, which I assume stands, is that anything ranked Priority-Regression is a "release blocker". IIRC, at one point this even blocked unstable releases. > > 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. I'm not opposed to this, although if we want to go this route, I propose *removing* the Priority-Regression label. We could then use High, Medium, Low, Postponed. Regressions would then be High-priority by default, but developers could lower it if the regression was due to an architecture change, or if it only worked by accident originally. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
