Re: Updated CG 7 Issues, draft 2

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Section 7.1:   "behaviour" --> "behavior"; U.S. spelling

Oops, yeah.  Ok, I've "fixed" this.  (I've been trying to get in
practice writing British, since my thesis has to be written in
British, instead of the customary Canadian wherein we can choose
whichever spelling we want.  :)

> Section 7.2: Type -- IMO, Defect is when LilyPond doesn't do what it says it
> does.  Enhancement is when you want LilyPond to do something new. But if you
> don't want to change the statements in the docs, that's fine with me.

Hmm... I was trying to make the point that a Defect should only be in
the output of the binary, as opposed to a convert-ly problem or doc
problem.  It's certainly true that we might not know whether an
initial problem report is a Defect, Documentation, or Script (i.e. if
there's some questionable output from lilypond-book)... but the "real"
Type should be the thing that we asymptotically move towards during
the discussion of that issue.  I'm not wild about saying "a defect is
when the output differs from the documentation", since that makes it
really unclear as to whether somebody should work on the docs or debug
scheme.

The Enhancement bit says "if in doubt, make it an enhancement".
Beyond that, I'm not certain how to clarify these points, either in
our "understood" policy or written policy.

Cheers,
- Graham