[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update)

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:34:25 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

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

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

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]