-@c -*- coding: us-ascii; mode: texinfo; -*-
+@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
@node Issues
@chapter Issues
+This chapter deals with defects, feature requests, and
+miscellaneous development tasks.
+
@menu
-* Introduction to issues::
-* Issue classification::
-* Adding issues to the tracker::
+* Introduction to issues::
+* Issue classification::
+* Adding issues to the tracker::
+* Checking and verifying issues::
+* Summary of project status::
+* Finding the cause of a regression::
@end menu
Second, the classification of what counts as a bug vs. feature
request, and the priorities assigned to bugs, are a matter of
-concern @strong{for developers only}. If you are curious about
-the classification, read on, but don't complain that your
-particular issue is higher priority or counts as a bug rather than
-a feature request.
+concern @strong{for developers only}. The Bug Squad will classify
+issues according to the guidelines given by developers.
+
+If you are curious about the classification, read on, but please
+don't complain that your particular issue should have higher
+priority or counts as a bug rather than a feature request.
@node Issue classification
@section Issue classification
-Status values:
+
+@subheading Status
+
+Open issues:
@itemize
@item
-New: the item was added by a non-member. Should be reviewed by
-the Bug Meister.
+New: the item was added by a non-member, despite numerous warnings
+not to do this. Should be reviewed by a member of the Bug Squad.
@item
-Accepted: the Bug Meister added it, or reviewed the item.
+Accepted: the Bug Squad added it, or reviewed the item.
@item
-Started: a programmer is working on a bugfix. (used infrequently,
-but should be used more often)
+Started: a contributor is working on a fix. Owner should change
+to be this contributor.
@end itemize
-Closed status values:
+
+Closed issues:
@itemize
Duplicate: issue already exists in the tracker.
@item
-Fixed: programmer claims to have fixed the bug. The Bug Meister
-should check the input code in an official binary release.
+Fixed: a contributor claims to have fixed the bug. The Bug
+Squad should check the fix with the next official binary release
+(not by compiling the source from git). Owner should be set to
+that contributor.
@item
-Verified: Bug Meister has confirmed that the issue is closed.
+Verified: Bug Squad has confirmed that the issue is closed.
@end itemize
-Type labels:
+
+@subheading Owner
+
+Newly-added issues should have @emph{no owner}. When a
+contributor indicates that he has Started or Fixed an item, he
+should become the owner.
+
+
+
+@subheading Type
+
+The issue's Type should be the first relevant item in this list.
@itemize
@item
-Type-Defect: a problem that requires no (or very little) new code
-to fix.
+Type-Collision: overlapping notation.
+
+@item
+Type-Defect: a problem in the core program. (the @code{lilypond}
+binary, scm files, fonts, etc).
+
+@item
+Type-Documentation: inaccurate, missing, confusing, or desired
+additional info. Must be fixable by editing a texinfo, ly, or scm
+file.
@item
-Type-Enhancement: a problem (or new feature) that requries a
-significant amount of new code.
+Type-Build: problem or desired features in the build system. This
+includes the makefiles, stepmake, python scripts, and GUB.
@item
-Type-Collision: overlapping notation. (this label takes
-precedence over -Defect and -Enhancement)
+Type-Scripts: problem or desired feature in the non-build-system
+scripts. Mostly used for convert-ly, lilypond-book, etc.
@item
-Type-Task: not used, I think. TODO: start using it or delete it.
+Type-Enhancement: a feature request for the core program. The
+distinction between enhancement and defect isn't extremely clear;
+when in doubt, mark it as enhancement.
@item
-Type-Other: anything else. TODO: start using it or delete it.
+Type-Other: anything else.
@end itemize
-Priority labels:
+
+@subheading Priority
+
+Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release.
@itemize
@item
-Priority-High: lilypond segfaults.
+Priority-Critical: lilypond segfaults, or a regression occurred
+within the last two stable versions. (i.e. when developing 2.13,
+any regression against 2.12 or 2.10 counts)
@item
-Priority-Regression: it used to work.
+Priority-High: highly embarrassing items, and any regression
+against a version earlier than two stable versions (i.e. when
+developing 2.13, any regression against 2.8 or earlier). This
+level is also used for issues which produce no output and fail to
+give the user a clue about what's wrong.
@item
-Priority-Medium: normal priority; this is the highest priority a
-non-crashing, non-regression bug report can receive.
-(regardless of the perceived importance)
+Priority-Medium: normal priority.
@item
Priority-Low: less important than normal.
@end itemize
-Opsys lables: pretty self-explanatory.
+The difference between Priority-Medium and Priority-Low is not
+well-defined, both in this policy and in practice. The only
+answer we can give at the moment is @qq{look at existing items in
+of the same type, and try to guess whether the priority is closer
+to the Medium items or Low items}. We're aware of the ambiguity,
+and won't complain if somebody picks a @q{wrong} value for
+Medium/Low.
+
+
+@subheading Opsys
-Other lables:
+Issues that only affect specific operating systems.
+
+
+@subheading Other items
+
+Other labels:
@itemize
@item
-Security: not used. TODO: delete, unless anybody is serious about
-this.
+Regression: it used to @strong{deliberately} work 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 breaking it does not count as a
+regression.
@item
-Performance: not used. TODO: delete.
+Patch: a patch to fix an issue is attached.
@item
-Usability: not used. TODO: delete.
+Frog: the fix is believed to be suitable for a new contributor
+(does not require a great deal of knowledge about LilyPond). The
+issue should also have an estimated time in a comment.
@item
Maintainability: hinders developent of LilyPond. For example,
Bounty: somebody is willing to pay for the fix.
@item
-Engraving-nitpick: output is not beautiful, but not strictly
-speaking @qq{wrong}. For example, a slur shape which does not
-collide with any notation, but looks ugly.
+Warning: graphical output is fine, but lilypond prints a
+false/misleading warning message. Alternately, a warning should
+be printed (such as a bar line error), but was not. Also applies
+to warnings when compiling the source code or generating
+documentation.
@item
-Warning-nitpick: graphical output is fine, but lilypond prints a
-false/misleading warning message.
+Security: might potentially be used.
+
+@item
+Performance: might potentially be used.
@end itemize
@node Adding issues to the tracker
@section Adding issues to the tracker
-FIXME: prettify.
+This should only be done by the Bug Squad or experienced
+developers. Normal users should not do this; instead, they should
+follow the guidelines for @rweb{Bug reports}.
+
+
+@node Checking and verifying issues
+@section Checking and verifying issues
+
+After each release (both stable and unstable):
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Regression test comparison: check the relevant version in
+@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}.
+
+@item
+Issues to verify:
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+Once every two weeks or so:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Check for any items with @code{label:patch}. If it's been more
+than a week since the last action on the issue, send an email to
+-devel to remind them about it. If the patch was withdrawn for
+more work, then remove the @code{patch} label.
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch}
+@end example
+
+@end itemize
+
+Once every year or so:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Checking all regtests: although we have a system for checking the
+regtests between two versions, occasionally a bug will slip
+through the cracks. It is therefore good to manually examine all
+the regtests (compare the images to the text description).
+
+@item
+Checking all issues: we try to mark each Issue @q{fixed} when we
+fix it, but occasionally one or two issues will slip through the
+cracks. It is therefore good to check all Issues. If you see the
+same (broken) output as the initial report, then simply post a
+"Problem still exists in 2.x.y" message to the issue.
+
+@end itemize
+
+
+@node Summary of project status
+@section Summary of project status
+
+The best overview of our current status is given by the grid view:
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
+@end example
+
+Also of interest might be the issues hindering future development:
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Maintainability&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
+@end example
+
+Finally, issues tagged with @code{Frog} indicates a task suitable
+for a relatively new contributor. The time given is a quick
+(inaccurate) estimate of the time required for somebody who is
+familiar with material in this manual, but does not know anything
+else about LilyPond development.
-only done by Bug Meister, unless you're really certain you know
-what you're doing.
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
+@end example
+@node Finding the cause of a regression
+@section Finding the cause of a regression
+Git has special functionality to help tracking down the exact
+commit which causes a problem. See the git manual page for
+@code{git bisect}. This is a job that non-programmers can do,
+although it requires familiarity with git, ability to compile
+LilyPond, and generally a fair amount of technical knowledge.
+Even if you are not familiar with git or are not able to compile
+LilyPond you can still help to narrow down the cause of a regression
+simply by downloading the binary releases of different LilyPond
+versions and testing them for the regression. Knowing which version
+of LilyPond first exhibited the regression is helpful to a developer
+as it shortens the @code{git bisect} procedure described above.
+Once a problematic commit is identified, the programmers' job is
+much easier. In fact, for most regression bugs, the majority of
+the time is spent simply finding the problematic commit.
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff