[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update)
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update) |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:34:25 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:50:02PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Monday, August 08, 2011 6:06 AM
>
> > * anything which stops contributors from helping out (e.g.
> > lily-git.tcl not working, source tree(s) not being
> > available). To limit this scope of this point, we will
> > assume that the contributor is using the latest lilydev and
> > has read the relevant part(s) of the Contributor’s Guide.
>
> I agree this is important, but I don't see why it
> should prevent a new release per se.
Hmm. I must admit that this rather contrasts with the "we should
let each contributor make their own judgement" sentiment.
> > * Type-ignorance: (fixme name?) it is not clear what the
> > correct output should look like. We need scans, references,
> > examples, etc.
>
> I don't think this is a stand-alone type. It's more a label
> which could be applied to several types.
Well... it depends on how much we trust users (and even
developers!) to be able to search the tracker, and/or pay
attention to the labels.
I'd like to make it Really Bleeding Obvious (tm) to users that an
issue is in limbo; no programming will or can take place until
some non-technical work is done (i.e. finding the references).
The most visible sign is to have a Type specifically for such
issues, but as you point out, this isn't really a "type" kind of
thing.
I guess that at the moment, I still have a slight preference for
this "abuse" of the "type" system... but I could be convinced
otherwise. Especially if there's another way of making this
clear?
Cheers,
- Graham
- GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Graham Percival, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Trevor Daniels, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update),
Graham Percival <=
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Jan Warchoł, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Trevor Daniels, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Graham Percival, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Trevor Daniels, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Graham Percival, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Trevor Daniels, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities (radical update), Graham Percival, 2011/08/10