[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: critical

From: Erik Sandberg
Subject: Re: critical
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:28:23 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

On Monday 11 October 2004 02.45, Graham Percival wrote:
> On 10-Oct-04, at 3:57 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> >  bugs/
> >
> > There is something fishy with the TeX code that I don't understand.
> > Personally, I don't care much for this TeX bug. It will only affect
> > lilypond-book users putting boxed marks above their scores, so I want
> > ask you if you can consider this bug "non-showstopper".
> It also applies to
> Rehearsal-marks.html#Rehearsal-marks
> I don't think we need to formally declare this as a type of bug, but
> I'd like
> to informally propose that we consider some bugs as "doc-showstopper".
> If
> we can't fix the bugs before 2.4, I should change the docs so that we
> don't
> have those problems in them.
> It would be nice to keep box-molecule in the Reharsal Marks section of
> the
> docs, but we could comment it out for now if necessary.  I just don't
> think we
> should have a manual with obvious flaws for the stable release.  :)

More importantly, if we would release a binary with this bug active, then 
there should have been a notice in the documentation that this bug exists. It 
is not a good idea to try to hide a bug, there should be a big fat notice 
that says that we know about this issue and that we're working on it.

But this is not important anymore, since the bug now has been fixed (Thanks 


reply via email to

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