[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: critical issues

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: critical issues
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:31:23 -0000

Graham Percival wrote Friday, December 31, 2010 11:20 PM

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:43:36PM +0000, Keith OHara wrote:
Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at>> writes:
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
> >
> > I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if > > something > > only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of bugs, > > then
> > "breaking" that should not be a Critical bug.
> I'm not sure about this.  The purpose of selecting
> out bugs to be critical is to ensure the user who
> keeps up to date with the stable series of releases
> can be sure nothing in the new release is going to
> break his scores.  He doesn't care whether something
> worked just by a happy coincidence of bugs. [...]

Suppose we have a pair of memory leaks.  One leak writes junk to
memory as part of the guile initalization, and another leak reads
junk from memory as part of the spacing algorithm.  This pair of
bugs happens to result in a pair of objects not colliding.  When
we fix one of these bugs, the objects happen to collide.  Oh no,
it's a regression!  However, lilypond never intentionally tried to
avoid those objects colliding -- in fact, intentionally avoiding
this collision would require a fair chunk of extra code.  Should
we hold back a stable release just for this?

Well, I don't intend to die in the ditch over this,
but the concern I had was this.  Quite a lot of the
documentation was written, not by inspecting the code
to see what was intended, but by experimenting and
writing up what was found.  I certainly worked that
way, and I think Mark and Keith did recently in
documenting the new spacing stuff.  In doing that we
had no idea whether the things we find are intentional
or a happy coincidence of bugs.  Now if you can work
in something about "working as intended or documented"
wrt determining critical bugs I'd be happier.

Also, without the filter of intentionality, you end up arguing about whether the
feature is important, which is much more subjective.


It is, but it might be relevant if fixing a minor
bug exposed a more serious one.


reply via email to

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