[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: critical issues
|
From: |
Graham Percival |
|
Subject: |
Re: critical issues |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Jan 2011 03:20:03 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 03:15:22AM +0000, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
> > "
> > 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.
> > "
>
> I'm not certain what "regression against a fix developed for this
> version" means.
Addendum: remember that any breakage in the regression tests is a
Critical issue. So if this was an important fix or new feature,
then the programmer should have added a regtest, and any breakage
in that regtest would be a critical bug regardless of any text
like "regression against a fix developed for this version".
It's probably worth adding something about regtest breakage to the
policy.
Cheers,
- Graham
Re: critical issues, Jan WarchoĊ, 2011/01/01
Re: critical issues, Trevor Daniels, 2011/01/01
Re: critical issues, David Kastrup, 2011/01/01
Re: critical issues, David Kastrup, 2011/01/01
Re: critical issues, Phil Holmes, 2011/01/02