Re: critical issues

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: critical issues


> 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.  If somebody fixes a minor bug in 2.13.15, and
> that fix doesn't work in 2.13.17, I don't think that should be a
> Critical bug.  If the fix works in 2.14.0 but doesn't work in
> 2.14.2 or 2.15.2, then I _would_ consider that a critical bug,
> under the usual "regression against the past two stable versions"
> rule.

That was new wording I was under the impression we'd agreed the last time 
this was discussed.  You said "I can't tell if there was a difference here 
from the current
version, but this looks fine."  My intention was that, even if it was a 
minor bug, then someone had put work in recently to fix it.  If someone else 
has just unpicked that, then this a Bad Thing and should be corrected.

> > 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.
> > "
>
> This means that the "regression since the last two stable
> versions" becomes an ad-hoc programmer decision, rather than an
> official policy decision.  Couldn't we keep the "for example,
> while developing 2.13, any regression since 2.12.x or 2.10.x
> counts as a critical issue" sentence?  I think that one sentence
> with exact numbers would provide much more clarity than terms like
> "this version" or "previous two stable versions".

On December 30 you said:
"In particular,
I'd fine telling / expecting bug squad members to make something
Critical if it's a regression, period.  Just as long as a
programmer can come by and say "wait, we broke that back in
2005... sure, it's still a bug, but we're not going to delay a
stable release for it.  I'm setting it to priority-medium"."

My wording reflects that?


--
Phil Holmes