Re: critical issues

[Keith OHara]

Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
> >
> > I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if something
> > only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of bugs, then
> > "breaking" that should not be a Critical bug.
> 
> I'm not sure about this.  The purpose of selecting
> out bugs to be critical is to ensure the user who
> keeps up to date with the stable series of releases
> can be sure nothing in the new release is going to
> break his scores.  He doesn't care whether something
> worked just by a happy coincidence of bugs. [...]

Products in general allow unintentional features to disappear in new versions.  
Features that were intentional, but unwise, often get a deprecated label for
one cycle.  I think this is practically necessary to allow the system or 
software to move forward.

Also, without the filter of intentionality, you end up arguing about whether 
the 
feature is important, which is much more subjective.

I recommend keeping intentionality, at least as a distinction between must-fix 
bugs and must-note-in-Changes.

My piano scores will break in 2.14 because I used the auto-beaming in cadenzas
--or they would if not for my adjusting them in response to the item in Changes.