On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:27:50 +0100 "Neil Puttock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/18 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I agree, but the instructions were explicit: if the output looks > > good, don't add any bugs about warning messages. > > That's OK so long as there's someone with a trained eye available to > check that the output's good. I used to reject reports that didn't explain what was wrong if I couldn't figure it out -- happened often with lyrics or ancient music (since I have a completely untrained eye in those subjects). That's one reason I was such a stickler for minimal reports. > > Now that you're here, maybe we can get those instructions changed. > > :) > > Well, I suppose the most important thing is to check before adding > anything to the bug tracker; hopefully that way we can sort the wheat > from the chaff by intercepting invalid bugs. Oh, of course -- and that's why we don't let random people submit items directly to the tracker. Other than half a dozen people, reports should go to the bug mailist, and Valentin makes sure that the report contains a minimal example that demonstrates the bug. It's just that the current policy is to reject bug reports about a false warning message. If somebody is willing to investigate these false warning messages and fix stuff, then maybe it's worth changing this policy. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
