Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:32:56PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
From: "Carl Sorensen" <c_soren...@byu.edu>
>On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival"
><gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>
>The difference between Phil's version and the previous version
>is
>
>"Something that worked as it should in a previous version, and
>now doesn't
>work." vs.
>
>"Something that worked intentionally in one of the previous two
>stable
>versions, and now doesn't work."
I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if something
only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of bugs, then
"breaking" that should not be a Critical bug.
I'm not sure about this. The purpose of selecting
out bugs to be critical is to ensure the user who
keeps up to date with the stable series of releases
can be sure nothing in the new release is going to
break his scores. He doesn't care whether something
worked just by a happy coincidence of bugs. All he
will see is a new stable release that breaks his scores.
Shouldn't we avoid doing that?
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
