On 2009-11-30, Graham Percival wrote: > 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.
Ah, okay. Just as long as we decide not to block unstable releases, I'm fine with it. That's asking a little too much. :-) > > > 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. What if we use "Type: Regression" instead of "Priority: Regression", and then label each with a priority of either High, Medium, Low, or Postponed (assuming we decide to go this route)? Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
