On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:50:02PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Monday, August 08, 2011 6:06 AM > > > * anything which stops contributors from helping out (e.g. > > lily-git.tcl not working, source tree(s) not being > > available). To limit this scope of this point, we will > > assume that the contributor is using the latest lilydev and > > has read the relevant part(s) of the Contributor’s Guide. > > I agree this is important, but I don't see why it > should prevent a new release per se.
Hmm. I must admit that this rather contrasts with the "we should let each contributor make their own judgement" sentiment. > > * Type-ignorance: (fixme name?) it is not clear what the > > correct output should look like. We need scans, references, > > examples, etc. > > I don't think this is a stand-alone type. It's more a label > which could be applied to several types. Well... it depends on how much we trust users (and even developers!) to be able to search the tracker, and/or pay attention to the labels. I'd like to make it Really Bleeding Obvious (tm) to users that an issue is in limbo; no programming will or can take place until some non-technical work is done (i.e. finding the references). The most visible sign is to have a Type specifically for such issues, but as you point out, this isn't really a "type" kind of thing. I guess that at the moment, I still have a slight preference for this "abuse" of the "type" system... but I could be convinced otherwise. Especially if there's another way of making this clear? Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
