Issue #612 still not fixed

[Werner LEMBERG]

Issue #612 presents a patch

  http://codereview.appspot.com/28134

which apparently hasn't been applied since the snippet given in the
bug report still produces the same output with 2.13.1...

Was this intentional or an oversight?


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Issue #612 presents a patch
>
>   http://codereview.appspot.com/28134
>
> which apparently hasn't been applied since the snippet given in the
> bug report still produces the same output with 2.13.1...
>
> Was this intentional or an oversight?

Since this is one of the most serious elementary typesetting bugs
which lilypond exposes, and which can easily happen in any piano
score, I vote for quick inclusion.


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Patrick McCarty-3]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Werner LEMBERG<wl@...> wrote:

>
>> Issue #612 presents a patch
>>
>>   http://codereview.appspot.com/28134
>>
>> which apparently hasn't been applied since the snippet given in the
>> bug report still produces the same output with 2.13.1...
>>
>> Was this intentional or an oversight?
>
> Since this is one of the most serious elementary typesetting bugs
> which lilypond exposes, and which can easily happen in any piano
> score, I vote for quick inclusion.

Well, Joe had a lot of comments for Chris, and I can't find a
follow-up patch, so I think we should wait until we hear back from him
about this issue.

-Patrick


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Since this is one of the most serious elementary typesetting bugs
>> which lilypond exposes, and which can easily happen in any piano
>> score, I vote for quick inclusion.
>
> Well, Joe had a lot of comments for Chris, and I can't find a
> follow-up patch, so I think we should wait until we hear back from
> him about this issue.

Indeed.  However, the postings on rietveld are older than three
months...  Chris?


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Joe Neeman-2]

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 07:07 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> >> Since this is one of the most serious elementary typesetting bugs
> >> which lilypond exposes, and which can easily happen in any piano
> >> score, I vote for quick inclusion.
> >
> > Well, Joe had a lot of comments for Chris, and I can't find a
> > follow-up patch, so I think we should wait until we hear back from
> > him about this issue.
>
> Indeed.  However, the postings on rietveld are older than three
> months...  Chris?

The problem IIRC is that the solution I had suggested to Chris wasn't
acceptable (with good reason) to Han-Wen. Chris understandably doesn't
seem too keen on throwing his work away and starting again with another
idea of mine.

Joe




_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Werner LEMBERG]

> The problem IIRC is that the solution I had suggested to Chris
> wasn't acceptable (with good reason) to Han-Wen.  Chris
> understandably doesn't seem too keen on throwing his work away and
> starting again with another idea of mine.

Hmm.  There is no such comment in the bug tracker, which is
unfortunate.


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Chris Snyder-5]

Joe Neeman wrote:
> The problem IIRC is that the solution I had suggested to Chris wasn't
> acceptable (with good reason) to Han-Wen. Chris understandably doesn't
> seem too keen on throwing his work away and starting again with another
> idea of mine.

Part of the reason I haven't followed up yet is because of the initial
discouragement, but right now it's mainly due to lack of time - I have a
home improvement project that's gone far longer than it should have, and
I'm exhibiting at a couple of American Guild of Organists conventions
for my company (I frequently hear comments about the quality of the
engraving, BTW). I'm still intending to follow up on it at some point,
but I don't see myself having much available time until August.

-Chris

--
Chris Snyder
Adoro Music Publishing
1-616-828-4436 x800
http://www.adoromusicpub.com


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I'm still intending to follow up on it at some point, but I don't
> see myself having much available time until August.

Thanks.  IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should
get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like
`priority'.  BTW, I'm currently not aware of another bug which is as
easily visible as #612.


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Mark Polesky]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> Thanks.  IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should
> get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like
> `priority'.  BTW, I'm currently not aware of another bug which is as
> easily visible as #612.

I don't know if they're as visible as #612, but I find #379 and
#427 personally aggravating. I think those two bugs currently
prevent LilyPond from looking truly professional.

- Mark



     


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should
>> get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like
>> `priority'.
>
> I don't know if they're as visible as #612, but I find #379 and
> #427 personally aggravating. I think those two bugs currently
> prevent LilyPond from looking truly professional.

I fully agree.  So we have at least three candidates which deserve a
`priority' tag.


    Werner


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Graham Percival-3]

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 07:42:01AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

>
> >> IMHO, this kind of bugs which are quite serious IMHO should
> >> get a special tag in the bug tracker, perhaps something like
> >> `priority'.
> >
> > I don't know if they're as visible as #612, but I find #379 and
> > #427 personally aggravating. I think those two bugs currently
> > prevent LilyPond from looking truly professional.
>
> I fully agree.  So we have at least three candidates which deserve a
> `priority' tag.

I disagree, although not seriously.

The current policy is that only crashes and regressions get higher
priority; everything else is medium, low, or postponed.  If we
listed those bugs as higher priority, would it change anything?
Would Chris work on it before Aug?  Would somebody else pick up
that work and do it sooner?

We can say that we won't release a new stable as long as we have
high or regression bugs.  I don't see the benefit of listing
certain bugs as "medium-plus" or "medium but important".


If we have more people fixing bugs, with more activity, resulting
in an actual decrease in issue numbers, then I would be
/delighted/ to revisit this policy.  I would *love* to declare
that we would fix all "medium" bugs, and reduce non-"important"
bugs to low, or whatever.

To put some hard numbers on it: I propose that we revisit the bug
classification system if we get below 150 issues and stay below
150 issues for a month.  Until the Frogs have made that much
progress -- until we have a regular group of bugfixers (10 people
doing 1 per week would achieve this goal in a few months) -- I
don't see the point significantly changing the issue tags.

Cheers,
- Graham


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Valentin Villenave]

2009/7/5 Graham Percival <graham@...>:
> The current policy is that only crashes and regressions get higher
> priority; everything else is medium, low, or postponed.  If we
> listed those bugs as higher priority, would it change anything?
> Would Chris work on it before Aug?  Would somebody else pick up
> that work and do it sooner?

IMSO (S stands for "Sorry"), the main point is less to fix new bugs
than firstly to make sure people who have begun fixing a bug actually
end up having fixed said bug. That's not about priority, that's about
not losing patches, no matter how poorly coded or documented or
relevant they may be.

One thing we (meaning, a dedicated and reliable BugMeister...) could
do to make sure patches don't go ignored, is mark issues as "Started"
whenever a patch is posted and not applied.

Regards,
Valentin


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel