On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:24:32PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
>>
>> I think one of these was mine. This is the thing I want to discuss
>> before creating a patch. I think the real problem over the
>> definitions is what counts as a "regression". My definition would
>> be "something that worked as it should in a previous version, and
>> now doesn't work".
>
> At first glance, that seems to be right.
The difference between Phil's version and the previous version is
"Something that worked as it should in a previous version, and now doesn't
work." vs.
"Something that worked intentionally in one of the previous two stable
versions, and now doesn't work."
>> TBH I was uncertain whether to add this to the tracker
>> at all and only did so because I had a few attempts at getting views
>> on whether it was a problem, with no response. I probably labelled
>> it a regression, but possibly wrongly.
>
> My thought process would be this:
> 1. am I certain that the new position is ok? If so, do nothing.
> 2. am I certain that the new position is not ok? If so, add it as
> a Critical issue with a brief description of the problem.
> 3. am I not certain either way? If so, add it as a Critical
> issue, but note that it may or may not be an actual problem.
>
> In the case of #3, if it's not actually a problem, then when a
> programmer takes a look at the issue, they can quickly mark it as
> an "invalid" report. I agree that it would be nice if we could
> find out about such invalid reports sooner (ideally before adding
> it at all!), but the evidence is that we cannot rely on people
> replying all the time.
Reinhold is the current FiguredBass guru. Have we tried asking him if this
output is acceptable?
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
