Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities

[Graham Percival]

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