Re: critical issues

[Phil Holmes]

[snip long-ish discussion]

OK, I think we reached a conclusion on this and so would like to make a 
patch.  I propose:

"
Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below) against a 
previous stable version or a regression against a fix developed for this 
version. This does not apply where the "regression" occurred because a 
feature was removed deliberately - this is not a bug.
"

At the bottom of this section, add:
"
Note that these are initial classifications and can be subject to change by 
others in the development team.  For example, a regression against an old 
stable version which hasn't been noticed for a long time and which in 
unlikely to get fixed could be downgraded from Priority-Critical by one of 
the programmers.
"

In "Other items"

"
Regression: it used to work intentionally in an earlier stable release. If 
the earlier output was accidental (i.e. we didn't try to stop a collision, 
but it just so happened that two grobs didn't collide), then changing the 
output does not count as a regression.

To help decide whether the change is a regression, and therefore should be 
Priority-Critical, please adopt the following process:

1. Are you certain the change is OK?  If so, do nothing.
2. Are you certain that the change is bad?  Add it to the tracker as a 
Critical issue, regression.
3. If you're not certain either way, add it to the tracker as a Critical 
issue, regression but be aware that it may be recategorised or marked 
invalid.
"

--
Phil Holmes