On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:49:07PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> > >It matches the theory. In practice, I've been startled quite a few > >times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present > >but also reported back when it turned out that the claimed functionality > >did not actually accompany the commit.
Well, it's nice to have pleasant surprises? :) > Graham and I used to debate this. His view was that all that is > required of Bug Squad members is to verify that a claimed fix was > committed. Don't forget that using the issue tracker for patch submission is a bit of a hack. It was added because we were losing too many patches. If an issue is actual bug report, i.e. contains a minimal example, then of course the bug squad member should check that the minimal example no longer produces the flawed graphical output. I just don't think it's worth inventing a lot of extra work for patch-only issues. > I do think that claimed fixes to real bugs should have a tiny > example, and the bug squad should confirm that the tiny example > no longer fails. This could argue for a more rigorous approach > to bug acceptance: no example, no report. Don't we already have a "no example, no report" policy for bugs?! We certainly should. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel