From 8f0250db5610c2adccefdc306ab7adf2b5df9b92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Graham Percival Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:44:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Doc: CG: add new issue classifications. --- Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi | 125 ++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index bab0f040a5..8d04531fe6 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi @@ -33,24 +33,28 @@ 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 the Bug Meister. @item Accepted: the Bug Meister 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 @@ -61,52 +65,80 @@ Invalid: issue should not have been added in the current state. 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 +Meister 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. @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) @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. @@ -117,12 +149,25 @@ like Ancient notation, which nobody wants to touch. @end itemize -Opsys labels: pretty self-explanatory. + +@subheading Opsys + +Issues that only affect specific operating systems. + + +@subheading Other items Other labels: @itemize +@item +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 Patch: a patch to fix an issue is attached. @@ -131,16 +176,6 @@ 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 -Security: not used. TODO: delete, unless anybody is serious about -this. - -@item -Performance: not used. TODO: delete. - -@item -Usability: not used. TODO: delete. - @item Maintainability: hinders developent of LilyPond. For example, improvements to the build system, or @qq{helper} python scripts. @@ -149,13 +184,17 @@ improvements to the build system, or @qq{helper} python scripts. 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 @@ -163,11 +202,9 @@ false/misleading warning message. @node Adding issues to the tracker @section Adding issues to the tracker -TODO: prettify. - -only done by Bug Meister, unless you're really certain you know -what you're doing. - +This should only be done by the Bug Meister(s), or experienced +developers. Normal users should not do this; instead, they should +follow the guidelines for @rweb{Bug reports}. @node Checking and verifying issues -- 2.39.5