Re: critical issues

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 06:24:19AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> By the way, do we have a policy about regressions?

Yes, they're bad?  :)

> I remember that
> reverting bad commits was discussed in the past, and i'm quite for
> this solution.
> I don't see information about which commits caused our currently open
> critical regression, does it mean that's impossible to tell or simply
> noone tried to find them?

It so happens that none of these Critical issues are really
fixable by reverting a single commit.

- lilypond-book came from a general rewrite of lilypond-book.
- osx came from me accepting a GUB patch which had a problem,
  which technically we could revert but it's better to just solve
  the underlying problem.  (and in fact I think it *has* been
  solved)
- windows path isn't strictly a regression, but IMO it screws up
  users' systems in a sufficiently stupid and embarrassing way
  that I'm going to call it Critical anyway.
- git branches comes from staging, which is necessary because
  people kept on breaking git master.
- web-git came from a cleanup of the old website, originating from
  a build system patch of mine, but come on folks, we already have
  a patch for this in the system, don't complain about that issue.

> Is finding them an easy (no knowledge
> needed, a complete set of dumbed-down instructions can be given) task
> that can be done using a moderately fast computer running lilydev (1,5
> GB RAM for virtual machine, processor Core i5 2.5 GHz and no idea if
> multicore thingy translates to virtual machine)?

when the problem *is* in the lilypond code base, yes it's
brain-dead easy to identify the problematic commit.  Instructions
are already in the CG -- look in the "regressions" chapter.

Cheers
,- Graham