[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Issue #612 still not fixed

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Issue #612 still not fixed
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:39:57 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 07:42:01AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >> IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should
> >> get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like
> >> `priority'.
> > 
> > I don't know if they're as visible as #612, but I find #379 and
> > #427 personally aggravating. I think those two bugs currently
> > prevent LilyPond from looking truly professional.
> I fully agree.  So we have at least three candidates which deserve a
> `priority' tag.

I disagree, although not seriously.

The current policy is that only crashes and regressions get higher
priority; everything else is medium, low, or postponed.  If we
listed those bugs as higher priority, would it change anything?
Would Chris work on it before Aug?  Would somebody else pick up
that work and do it sooner?

We can say that we won't release a new stable as long as we have
high or regression bugs.  I don't see the benefit of listing
certain bugs as "medium-plus" or "medium but important".

If we have more people fixing bugs, with more activity, resulting
in an actual decrease in issue numbers, then I would be
/delighted/ to revisit this policy.  I would *love* to declare
that we would fix all "medium" bugs, and reduce non-"important"
bugs to low, or whatever.

To put some hard numbers on it: I propose that we revisit the bug
classification system if we get below 150 issues and stay below
150 issues for a month.  Until the Frogs have made that much
progress -- until we have a regular group of bugfixers (10 people
doing 1 per week would achieve this goal in a few months) -- I
don't see the point significantly changing the issue tags.

- Graham

reply via email to

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