On Aug 2, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Graham Percival wrote: > ** Proposal details > > Priority-critical: > > * a reproducible failure to build either make or make doc, > from an empty build tree, in a first run, if configure does > not report any errors. > * any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks like > or which options are given.
I like the first one, but I think the second needs to be tweaked a bit. If you run LilyPond on a PDF file on accident, I find that 1 time out of 3 it crashes. This may be the same for mp3 files, jpg files, etc. The second rule could be reformatted to read "any segfault on an input file that users claim to be a .ly file." I like this classification scheme, but even if it were fixed, it would not solve the issue you address in the preface to this GOP - namely, the small number of developers with respect to the large number of bugs. If possible, I'd like to have a GOP at a later date on developer recruitment: I think that it is entirely possible to actively bring on new people and to try to get the tracker back down to 60ish issues. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
