Re: Priority-Regression policy

[Patrick McCarty]

On 2009-11-29, Graham Percival wrote:
> What's the feeling amongst developers about what should be ranked
> as priority-Regression (and thus stop a release) ?  In particular,
> should *everything* that used to work -- even if it was by
> accident? -- be ranked a Regression?

Maybe we could add labels indicating which release an issue blocks?
This is what Mozilla does for their products.

Like "2.14-blocker", "3.0-blocker", etc. as well as
"Priority-Regression".

> For example,
> - markup \note in time signature: worked in 2.10, currently
>   Defect-Low.
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=628

If I'm reading this correctly, it worked in 2.8, not 2.10.

As you can tell from the comments on this issue, a *proper* solution
is going to be very involved, so I can't see this happening in the
near future.  This might get fixed before 2.16 (or whatever is after
2.14).

> - Tie direction: worked in 2.10 (by accident?), currently 
>   Enhancement-Low.
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=592

Not sure about this one.  Either it worked in 2.10 by accident, or it
is a regression in 2.11.  I don't know enough about this code to make
a call.

> I don't particularly mind which way we decide, but I'd like it to
> be consistent, and I'm going to insist that if something is
> Priority-Regression, it blocks a release.

IMO, regressions from 2.13 should get first priority and should block
2.14, but other regressions should be considered on a case-by-case
basis.

Thanks,
Patrick