[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Aug 2011 23:47:50 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:22:33AM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > * any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks like
> > or which options are given.
>
> I like the first one, but I think the second needs to be tweaked
> a bit. If you run LilyPond on a PDF file on accident, I find
I think we should still exit gracefully, even given completely
junk input. Many programs achieve this; some experts in user
interface call this "cat testing" (well, ok, "fuzz testing"),
while security experts call this "a security risk".
There is a long history of "good programs never crash". I think
we should take part in that.
> I like this classification scheme, but even if it were fixed, it
> would not solve the issue you address in the preface to this GOP
> - namely, the small number of developers with respect to the
> large number of bugs.
Recruitment is not a problem; we already turn away / waste more
volunteers than we have. The first step to recruiting new
contributors is to stop turning away the existing ones, and
treating label:maintainability issues as serious will go a long
way towards that.
Improvements to our development process won't be finished until
the end 2011; I think it's irresponsible to actively recruit
people until then.
Cheers,
- Graham
- GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Graham Percival, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, address@hidden, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Keith OHara, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Keith OHara, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Jan Warchoł, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, David Kastrup, 2011/08/06