Re: removed bugs from lily-bugs

[Erik Sandberg]

On Tuesday 01 June 2004 01.27, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > I strongly suggest to start a ChangeLog file to document changes
> > > in the repository, mainly to avoid reporting the same errors again
> > > and again.
> >
> > I think there's a simpler solution than using a ChangeLog.
> >
> > One is to use the convention that bugs are removed only directly
> > after the official release of a new version.  This would mean that
> > all reported bugs in 2.2.1 would exist in lily-bugs with date stamp
> > of the 2.2.2 release.  If you like, I could in addition tag these
> > files lilypond_2_2_1 (showing that this is the final list of known
> > 2.2.1 bugs).
> >
> > Would this be satisfactory?
>
> Not for me.  What you suggest is far too complicated IMHO; it relies
> on CVS access which is not always available. 

It relies on CVS read access, just as the rest of the bug archive.

> BTW, what exactly do you 
> mean with `date stamp'?

I guess I meant something like
-D 2004-05-31
(I guess I'm using incorrect terminology). When thinking again, I realise that 
using a tag is much better.

> There is a good reason that GNU projects use ChangeLog files for
> bookkeeping.  Until now it beats any other logging system.

There is an important difference though: most GNU projects are not bug 
databases.

To me it feels meaningless to just add notices like 'Removed midi-tie' to a 
changelog. This doesn't say anything to the reader. To understand what it 
means, you would still have to use some odd cvs command to download the bug 
report & see what it is.

Personally, I do not think that there will be a big public interest in the 
history of lilypond bugs. What I believe could be interesting, is the set of 
open bugs, and the set of very recently closed bugs. I.e. what will be in CVS 
with my latest suggestion.

If you use an old version of lilypond & find a bug, then you should upgrade to 
the latest version. At least if you are so advanced that you use the bug 
database.

Keep in mind that there is a reason why we are using cvs instead of bugzilla: 
the bug database is not intended primarily for the public, but for internal 
use among developers. (though the public of course is welcome to read). Since 
all developers should have the latest lilypond versions, they will not add 
any bugs to the database, that don't exist in the latest lilypond version. 
Thus there is no risk of reporting bugs the same bugs again and again.

I might be missing something though.

Erik