On Sun, 2026-08-16 at 15:00 -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2026, 1:51 PM Dan Eble <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The meaning of our "Crash" label is broad, for example, > > > > - segmentation fault > > - out of memory > > - user tired of waiting > > - Scheme error > > > > I propose narrowing the definition of "Crash" to abnormal termination by > > the OS and relabeling issues of the latter two kinds as "Defect". > > > > I was of the understanding we already defined "crash" as program > termination with an OS-reported error. So I agree with your proposal
+1 in general. Scheme errors, if it's in LilyPond's Scheme code, may qualify as well IMO, if the input is "well-formed" (ie no wrong user Scheme code). If you think it's useful, also consider changing the label description.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
