On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:19:29PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote: > > A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has > > _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once > > been fixed to work in that specific way. > > If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression > > but just a newly introduced bug. > > Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in > the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous > version is a regression.
I believe that Urs has the correct definition, although I don't have a reference handy. It should be in the CG, or at least the GOP decision from last summer, though. If we try to account for accidental changes of accidentally-working stuff, 2.16 will never be out (until/unless we change the release policy during GOP 2, which I will be proposing). - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
