On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:27:07AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Jan Warchoł wrote Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:27 AM > >Because having some issue officially block stable release is the > >only > >way of seriously pushing developers to fix it? > > Wouldn't work. Few, if any, developers use lily-git.tcl so > are unlikely to be in a position to fix it.
Using lily-git.tcl and being able to fix it are completely different things. IIRC the only people who have worked on lily-git.tcl are the original author of it, Carl, and me -- none of these people actually use lily-git.tcl. Besides, lily-git.tcl is only a small fraction of the things which may stop a contributor from helping out. If savannah is down, then nobody can push (or pull) anything. > Developers seem to become more productive when > releases are make frequently. If releases stop, for whatever > reason, development slows down. So if this is intended as > a means of coercion I think it is misguided. I disagree; developers are more productive when there's more *unstable* releases; stable releases don't really affect things (other than the prospect of a stable release increasing work). No, there's no doubt in my mind that including "stops development" as a Critical issue would help get them solved sooner. The only question in my mind is whether this is an acceptable departure from the "describe bugs in neutral terms... each contributor can interpret the results as he or she sees fit" idea. I honestly think that we *should* depart from that overall idea in this case, but I'm troubled by my inability to give a convincing reason (even to myself) as to why. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
