Re: critical issues

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:59:47PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> I see the following critical issues:
> -snip-
>> 
>> There is, actually, a wagonload of other changes underfoot that does not
>> appear quite compatible with releasing a version called "stable" to me.
>> It seems strange to me that the _above_ should be the critical ones.
>> Critical enough that we don't even bother with trying to stabilize the
>> remaining situation.
>
> The definition of a Critical issue is given here:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/gop_002dprop-8-_002d-issue-priorities
>
> This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on
> lilypond-devel.  A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst
> those emails, but we simply cannot afford to revisit every policy
> decision every six months because somebody didn't notice or wasn't
> interested in the previous discussion.

The labels are not all that interesting to me.  If we don't have
developers or users interested in working seriously on or with certain
proprietary platforms, then there is no point in calling those platforms
supported and stopping the release process for those platforms that
_can_ be considered supported.

> If you are aware of any other issues which fall under the
> definition (i.e. a reproducible failure to build lilypond from
> scratch,

On a supported platform.  It does not look like there is currently much
sense in calling MacOSX or Windows that.

> an unintentional regression, or something which stops a good
> contributor from working on lilypond),

That's urgent.  But it is not release-relevant since good contributors
don't work on released versions but on the development version.  I also
see no point in delaying a stable release because of details that are
not actually worse than at the previous release.

> then please change that issue to be Type-Critical instead of whatever
> it is right now.

-- 
David Kastrup