Re: critical issues

[Carl Sorensen]

On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:24:32PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
>> 
>> I think one of these was mine.  This is the thing I want to discuss
>> before creating a patch.  I think the real problem over the
>> definitions is what counts as a "regression".  My definition would
>> be "something that worked as it should in a previous version, and
>> now doesn't work".
> 
> At first glance, that seems to be right.

The difference between Phil's version and the previous version is

"Something that worked as it should in a previous version, and now doesn't
work." vs.

"Something that worked intentionally in one of the previous two stable
versions, and now doesn't work."

>>  TBH I was uncertain whether to add this to the tracker
>> at all and only did so because I had a few attempts at getting views
>> on whether it was a problem, with no response.  I probably labelled
>> it a regression, but possibly wrongly.
> 
> My thought process would be this:
> 1. am I certain that the new position is ok?  If so, do nothing.
> 2. am I certain that the new position is not ok?  If so, add it as
> a Critical issue with a brief description of the problem.
> 3. am I not certain either way?  If so, add it as a Critical
> issue, but note that it may or may not be an actual problem.
> 
> In the case of #3, if it's not actually a problem, then when a
> programmer takes a look at the issue, they can quickly mark it as
> an "invalid" report.  I agree that it would be nice if we could
> find out about such invalid reports sooner (ideally before adding
> it at all!), but the evidence is that we cannot rely on people
> replying all the time.

Reinhold is the current FiguredBass guru.  Have we tried asking him if this
output is acceptable?

Thanks,

Carl