Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities

[Jan Warchoł]

2011/8/6 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Jan Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 2011/8/6 James Lowe <address@hidden>:
>>> Users and new contributors will interpret priority as importance,
>>> though, and will naturally want their favorites to be higher on the
>>> list.  That's why I suggested putting issues where we don't know
>>> exactly what Lilypond should do, as "Postponed".  Obviously we can't
>>> program the behavior until we know what we want it to be, and that
>>> motivates users (who might know their area of notation better than we
>>> do) to think through what they want.
>>
>> Hmm.  Interesting point of view.
>
> Not always helpful either.  A lover of artwork won't be able to tell an
> artist how to improve his work.  He still can be more, or less satisfied
> with it.  You can tell critics "do it yourself then", and they won't be
> able to.  But it is not their job.

Good point.


2011/8/6 Wols Lists <address@hidden>:
> The whole philosophy of lilypond is that beautiful music is easily
> playable music. *Mostly* that's true. But as a bandsman, I place a
> *very* high penalty on page breaks. I wish I could force lily to force
> music on to one, or at most two, pages. But that goes completely against
> the grain of what most lily people want.

IIRC it should be possible to set a custom penalty on line breaks.

> I know asking users to categorise importance to them is hard - yes
> they'll often say any bug is a serious bug - but to me for example
> printing one last stave on page two instead of cramming it onto page one
> is a massive failing of lily as a "master engraver".

I agree.  I thought about fixing this, but i decided it's too
difficult for me now.  But automating page layout settings are on my
TODO list; let me know if you will be trying to attack it (= CC me, i
often miss e-mails not cced to me).

> Maybe we should have some scoring system whereby things are graded both
> on importance to user, and ease of fixing, along with program integrity
> (ie how serious a programmer would rate it - segfault, buggy code, etc).
> My formatting issues would probably rate about 1 on ease of fix and
> program integrity, but the higher the average score the more critical
> the feature because fixing it would have a far bigger impact across the
> board.

Hmm.  I was thinking about it some time ago, but do you know what?  I
think that it doesn't matter so much...  Until we collectively hire a
programmer to help us fixing bugs (or the development team will grow
two times bigger), issue priorities (other than critical) have little
impact.  We'll spend more time discussing this than we'll gain by
results.
As for now i see that the only way to have things done is to start
programming, hoping that other people will join you.  It's hard, i
know myself.


2011/8/6 Keith OHara <address@hidden>:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:55:46 -0700, James Lowe <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>> OK but it still doesn't get away from the 'when do we release the next
>> stable release' question if we only have labels?
>>
>
> I don't think Janek was suggesting we drop the field, only that my
> suggestion sounds more like a label than a rank.

Yes, that's what i meant.

cheers,
Janek