On 2 August 2011 10:28, Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> wrote: > > So any bug in Lily that produces bad output can never be High? Or - to put > it another way, we, the developers ,only regard bugs as high when they > hinder us, not when they make you, the user's life difficult. I don't like > that. I remain of the view that the words "An issue which produces output > which does not accurately reflect the input (e.g. where the user would > expect an accidental, but none is shown) or which produces aesthetically > poor output in a situation which could be expected to crop up frequently in > real-world music. It should not be used where the problem can be avoided > with a simple workaround." make a good definition of high.
I agree, Graham's proposal is devel-based only. As a user I prefer Phil's suggestion. An issue that clearly produces a bad (unexpected) output, whereas the input was good should be given a "higher consideration". The same for issues that give a poor output and that are likely to happen in almost every score produced. Thanks! Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <x.sche...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
