Re: What is the point of bug-lilypond?

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/16/21, 4:55 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jean Abou Samra" 
<lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen=gmail.com@gnu.org on behalf of 
jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:

<snip>
    
    A factor to consider is that, as far as I can read
    http://lilypond.org/bug-reports.html (but I can't
    remember how it worked for myself), posting to
    bug-lilypond requires being subscribed to the list,
    thus receiving all subsequent bug reports, which is
    not what a user wants. On GitLab, just turn on
    notifications for an issue if you are interested
    in it. This is turned on by default if you are
    the author of the report.

When I started with bug-lilypond, posting did not require subscribing.  Now, 
apparently, it does, probably to avoid spam (we had a problem with spam on 
bug-lilypond for a while).

However, one can subscribe to the list and turn off all emails.
    
    It's also a question of communication. With bug-lilypond,
    a bug report is supposedd not to immediately interface with
    developers (for some definition of this term). A drawback
    of GitLab issues is that everyone there receives notification
    for all reports including those that are not actually
    valid. I would actually turn this to an advantage:
    it's often interesting to see common failure patterns
    (leading to better interfaces and/or better documentation).

I have turned off GitLab issues, because I don’t want to be swamped with the 
updates.  I am, however, subscribed to bug-lilypond so I can see what problems 
come up and will respond to those that I feel a need to.

I would be really disappointed if we replaced bug-lilypond with GitLab issues.  
GitLab issues give you the whole history.  bug-lilypond just gives you the 
report and the issue number for the created issue (if I want more information).

I would stop interacting with bug reports entirely if bug-lilypond is replace 
with direct submission to GitLab issues.

Thanks,

Carl