@menu
* Introduction to issues::
+* Bug Squad overview::
* Bug Squad setup::
* Bug Squad checklists::
* Issue classification::
New volunteers for the Bug Squad should contact the
@ref{Meisters, Bug Meister}.
+@node Bug Squad overview
+@section Bug Squad overview
+
+The Bug Squad are volunteers who progress issue tracking using the
+Google Issue tracker at
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list}
+@end example
+
+Bug Squad members have 2 primary responsiblities:
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Monitoring the LilyPond Bugs mailing list and adding to the
+tracker any new issues reported there.
+
+@item
+Verifying issues that are claimed fixed by a developer, to ensure
+that the fix works, and is actually in the code base.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+It's also part of the Bug Squad's responsibility to check that
+the Regression Tests don't show up any problems in the latest
+release. The Bug Meister currently does this.
+
+All of this is explained in more detail in the following sections.
@node Bug Squad setup
@section Bug Squad setup
@example
Monday: Ralph
Tuesday: Eluze
-Wednesday: Brett
+Wednesday: Marek
Thursday: Colin Hall (disambiguation here)
Friday: Marek
-Saturday: Brett
+Saturday: James
Sunday: Phil
@end example
@itemize
@item
-Issues to verify: try to reproduce the bug with the latest
-officially released version (not one you've built yourself from
-source); if the bug is no longer there, mark the
-issue @qq{Verified} (i.e. @qq{the fix has been verified to work}).
-
-The list of items to verify is here:
+Issues to verify: go to
@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}
@end example
-You can also generate this list by selecting @qq{Issues to verify}
-from the drop-down list next to the search box.
+(You can also generate this list by selecting
+@qq{Issues to verify} from the drop-down list next to the search
+box.)
+
+You should see a list of Issues that have been claimed fixed by a
+developer. If the developer has done their job properly, the
+Issue should have a tag @qq{Fixed_mm_MM_ss}, where mm is
+the major version, MM the minor version and ss the current
+release. This will help you work out which you can verify - do
+not verify any Issues where the claimed fixed build is not yet
+released. Work your way through these as follows:
+
+If the Issue refers to a bug, try to reproduce the bug with the latest
+officially released version (not one you've built yourself from
+source); if the bug is no longer there, mark the
+issue @qq{Verified} (i.e. @qq{the fix has been verified to work}).
Quite a few of these will be issues tracking patches. @strong{You
do not have to prove these patches work - simply that they have
@uref{http://philholmes.net/lilypond/git/}
@end example
+The Issue tracker also requires that any issues labelled as
+@qq{Duplicate} are also verified. Check that the linked issue is
+a duplicate and verify the issue.
+
A few (approximately 10%) of the fixed issues relate to the
build system or fundamental architecture changes; there is no way
for you to verify these. Leave those issues alone; somebody else
will handle them.
@item
-Regression test comparison: if anything has changed suspiciously,
+The official regression test comparison is online at:
+
+@c NOTE: leave this here. In this case, it's worth duplicating
+@c the link. -gp
+@example
+@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}
+@end example
+
+If anything has changed suspiciously,
ask if it was deliberate. If the text output from LilyPond (the
logfile) changes, the differences will be displayed with a +
before text added to the logfile and - before any text removed
randomly spaced notes and will always have different output if the
regtest checker is working.
-The official comparison is online, at:
-
-@c NOTE: leave this here. In this case, it's worth duplicating
-@c the link. -gp
-@example
-@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}
-@end example
-
More information is available from in
@ref{Precompiled regression tests}.
@item
Type-Critical: normally a regression
-against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
-developed for this version. This does not apply where the
+against the current stable version or the previous stable version.
+Alternatively, a regression against a fix developed for the
+current version. This does not apply where the
@qq{regression} occurred because a feature was removed
deliberately - this is not a bug.
distinction between enhancement and defect isn't extremely clear;
when in doubt, mark it as enhancement.
+@item
+Type-Patch: tracking a patch on Rietveld. Bug squad should not
+need to use this label.
+
@item
Type-Other: anything else.
Issues that only affect specific operating systems.
-@subheading Patch (optional)
+@subheading Patch label (optional)
-Normal Bug Squad members should not add or modify Patch issues;
-leave them to the Patch Meister.
+Normal Bug Squad members should not add or modify Patch issues
+except to verify them; for all other Patch work, leave them to the
+Patch Meister.
@itemize
@code{patch-new} (for normal contributors) or @code{patch-review}
(for developers who are very confident about their patch).
+@item
+Patch-countdown: final call for any patch problems
+
+@item
+Patch-push: patch has passed the countdown and should be pushed.
+
@item
Patch-abandoned: the author has not responded to review comments
for a few months.
@itemize
@item
-Regression: it used to work intentionally 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.
+Regression: it used to work intentionally in the current
+stable release or the previous 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.
To help decide whether the change is a regression, please adopt
the following process:
If you particularly want to add a label not in the list, go
ahead, but this is not recommended, except when an issue is marked
-as fixed. In this case it should be labeled fixed_mm_MM_ss,
+as fixed. In this case it should be labeled Fixed_mm_MM_ss,
where mm is major version, MM minor version and ss current
release.
@item
Add the issue and classify it according to the guidelines in
@ref{Issue classification}. In particular, the item should have
-@code{Status}, @code{Type-}, and @code{Priority-} labels.
+@code{Status} and @code{Type-} labels.
Include output with the first applicable method:
@item
Images created as @file{bug.png} may be trimmed to a minimum size
by using the @code{trimtagline.sh} script, which can be found at
+
+@smallexample
@uref{https://raw.github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/master/bug-squad/trimtagline.sh}
+@end smallexample
@example
trimtagline.sh bug.ly