On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote: > " > Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below) > against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix > developed for this version. This does not apply where the > "regression" occurred because a feature was removed deliberately - > this is not a bug. > "
I'm not certain what "regression against a fix developed for this version" means. If somebody fixes a minor bug in 2.13.15, and that fix doesn't work in 2.13.17, I don't think that should be a Critical bug. If the fix works in 2.14.0 but doesn't work in 2.14.2 or 2.15.2, then I _would_ consider that a critical bug, under the usual "regression against the past two stable versions" rule. > At the bottom of this section, add: > " > Note that these are initial classifications and can be subject to > change by others in the development team. For example, a regression > against an old stable version which hasn't been noticed for a long > time and which in unlikely to get fixed could be downgraded from > Priority-Critical by one of the programmers. > " This means that the "regression since the last two stable versions" becomes an ad-hoc programmer decision, rather than an official policy decision. Couldn't we keep the "for example, while developing 2.13, any regression since 2.12.x or 2.10.x counts as a critical issue" sentence? I think that one sentence with exact numbers would provide much more clarity than terms like "this version" or "previous two stable versions". I don't mind if you want to hide the precise-version-number example sentence somewhere where normal bug squad members won't find it, but I think it should be in that chapter somewhere. > In "Other items" > > " > Regression: it used to work intentionally in an earlier stable > release. If the earlier output was accidental (i.e. we didn't try to > stop a collision, but it just so happened that two grobs didn't > collide), then changing the output does not count as a regression. > > To help decide whether the change is a regression, and therefore > should be Priority-Critical, please adopt the following process: > > 1. Are you certain the change is OK? If so, do nothing. > 2. Are you certain that the change is bad? Add it to the tracker as > a Critical issue, regression. > 3. If you're not certain either way, add it to the tracker as a > Critical issue, regression but be aware that it may be recategorised > or marked invalid. > " This is fine. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
