Graham Percival wrote: > Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug > hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the > issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would > you seriously just start working on whichever item *I* said > was most important / most annoying ? or would you try to > find an item that appealed to *you* personally?
I think I side with Werner on this one. There are 336 open issues in the tracker. And something like #379, which most of us would agree looks hideous*, is given priority `low', while something like #887, which involves point-and-click of all things, is given priority `medium'. *http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=-7427108513750415230&name=line-break-slurs.PNG If I were looking for issues to tackle, I might entirely overlook #379, buried under a hundred other "higher" priority issues like point-and-click. But the issues that Werner is talking about, these are the bugs that serious typesetters will find themselves invariably colliding with. Someone typesetting real scores for a real publisher will have an easier time accepting a point-and-click/special-character limitation, but will find a bug like #379 simply unacceptable. And if the only workaround involves tweaking every slur manually, then they'll turn to a different program. Personally, I don't think `priority'* or `annoying' captures it. I would label them `embarrassing', because they're holding LilyPond back from looking really professional. And I think that the harshness of that label carries an even bigger incentive to get rid of them (somehwat like the flashing-text pink boxes on the new website). *http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-07/msg00082.html - Mark _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
