On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:44:53AM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote: > >>http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1535 > > I did try to follow the discussion cited, but never found a simple > statement of what it would improve. Strictly, this report should > have been marked invalid: it fails 2 criteria for inclusion. > Quoting from the CG: > > "If a bug report is not in the form of a Tiny example, direct the > user to resubmit the report " > "Include output with the first applicable method". > > This could easily have been done. Graham's example and a PNG of the > tweak having no effect would have been OK.
BTW, it was Neil's example. > In future, I will mark requests/bugs like this as invalid. Wait a moment -- the confusion arises because we are TEMPORARILY (and SUCKILY) using the google issue tracker for two separate things: 1. bug reports / features 2. patches This is not ideal. We know this. We've known it for months and months; it's in the GOP policy list for discussion. We're not going to open the can of worms yet, though. This issue was added by Marek, following the guidelines here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/patch-handling We might need to adjust some language in the earlier parts of that chapter... although technically, this was not a "bug report"; it was a new issue added by a project member to add it. Project members are welcome to add issues. Perhaps we should just say that the Bug Squad should ignore any "issue to verify" that is tagged with "Patch" ? we can find somebody else that can check if a patch was actually pushed. (again, this is a temporary situation; at some point, we will most likely stop using the issue tracker to deal with patches) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
