Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: > On 2026-08-17 09:00, David Kastrup wrote: >> Instead of haggling over the definition of "Crash", maybe we should >> create explicit categories for the kinds of fifth wall breakage we want >> to see treated separately? > > In another message sent around the same time as yours, I suggested, > > I could create a new label ("Error" or whatever you'd > prefer) for non-crash error handling: false positives, > false negatives, confusing messages, etc. I'm not a > fan of having many labels, but if people would want to > search for such issues in a category apart from "Defect", > then it would be useful. > > I would like to be able to search for OS termination issues apart from > unhandled Scheme exceptions. You said that you consider unhandled > Scheme exceptions crashes. That's fine, but a person labeling issues > needs to know whether you want to be able to search for them as a > distinct category. What do you think of this? > > | Error::OS | a segfault, out-of-memory crash, etc. | > | Error::Scheme | an unhandled Scheme exception | > | Error::Other | an error reported through the lilypond > diagnostics layer or a false negative | > | Defect | "a problem in the core program" (as now) |
If there is a need for it, I am fine with distinguishing this at the label level. -- David Kastrup
