Doc: CG: Clarify behavior of @samp in `Texinfo introduction'.

[lilypond/mpolesky.git] / Documentation / contributor / issues.itexi

@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
@node Issues
@chapter Issues

This chapter deals with defects, feature requests, and
miscellaneous development tasks.

@menu
* Introduction to issues::
* Issue classification::
* Adding issues to the tracker::
* Checking and verifying issues::
* Summary of project status::
* Finding the cause of a regression::
@end menu


@node Introduction to issues
@section Introduction to issues

First, @qq{issue} isn't just a politically-correct term for
@qq{bug}.  We use the same tracker for feature requests and code
TODOs, so the term @qq{bug} wouldn't be accurate.

Second, the classification of what counts as a bug vs. feature
request, and the priorities assigned to bugs, are a matter of
concern @strong{for developers only}.  The Bug Squad will classify
issues according to the guidelines given by developers.

If you are curious about the classification, read on, but please
don't complain that your particular issue should have higher
priority or counts as a bug rather than a feature request.


@node Issue classification
@section Issue classification


@subheading Status

Open issues:

@itemize

@item
New: the item was added by a non-member, despite numerous warnings
not to do this.  Should be reviewed by a member of the Bug Squad.

@item
Accepted: the Bug Squad added it, or reviewed the item.

@item
Started: a contributor is working on a fix.  Owner should change
to be this contributor.

@end itemize


Closed issues:

@itemize

@item
Invalid: issue should not have been added in the current state.

@item
Duplicate: issue already exists in the tracker.

@item
Fixed: a contributor claims to have fixed the bug.  The Bug
Squad should check the fix with the next official binary release
(not by compiling the source from git).  Owner should be set to
that contributor.

@item
Verified: Bug Squad has confirmed that the issue is closed.

@end itemize


@subheading Owner

Newly-added issues should have @emph{no owner}.  When a
contributor indicates that he has Started or Fixed an item, he
should become the owner.



@subheading Type

The issue's Type should be the first relevant item in this list.

@itemize

@item
Type-Collision: overlapping notation.

@item
Type-Defect: a problem in the core program.  (the @code{lilypond}
binary, scm files, fonts, etc).

@item
Type-Documentation: inaccurate, missing, confusing, or desired
additional info.  Must be fixable by editing a texinfo, ly, or scm
file.

@item
Type-Build: problem or desired features in the build system.  This
includes the makefiles, stepmake, python scripts, and GUB.

@item
Type-Scripts: problem or desired feature in the non-build-system
scripts.  Mostly used for convert-ly, lilypond-book, etc.

@item
Type-Enhancement: a feature request for the core program.  The
distinction between enhancement and defect isn't extremely clear;
when in doubt, mark it as enhancement.

@item
Type-Other: anything else.

@end itemize


@subheading Priority

Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release.

@itemize

@item
Priority-Critical: lilypond segfaults, or a regression occurred
within the last two stable versions.  (i.e. when developing 2.13,
any regression against 2.12 or 2.10 counts)

@item
Priority-High: highly embarrassing items, and any regression
against a version earlier than two stable versions (i.e. when
developing 2.13, any regression against 2.8 or earlier).  This
level is also used for issues which produce no output and fail to
give the user a clue about what's wrong.

@item
Priority-Medium: normal priority.

@item
Priority-Low: less important than normal.

@item
Priority-Postponed: no fix planned.  Generally used for things
like Ancient notation, which nobody wants to touch.

@end itemize

The difference between Priority-Medium and Priority-Low is not
well-defined, both in this policy and in practice.  The only
answer we can give at the moment is @qq{look at existing items in
of the same type, and try to guess whether the priority is closer
to the Medium items or Low items}.  We're aware of the ambiguity,
and won't complain if somebody picks a @q{wrong} value for
Medium/Low.


@subheading Opsys

Issues that only affect specific operating systems.


@subheading Other items

Other labels:

@itemize

@item
Regression: it used to @strong{deliberately} work in an earlier
stable release.  If the earlier output was accidental (i.e. we
didn't try to stop a collision, but it just so happened that two
grobs didn't collide), then breaking it does not count as a
regression.

@item
Patch: a patch to fix an issue is attached.

@item
Frog: the fix is believed to be suitable for a new contributor
(does not require a great deal of knowledge about LilyPond).  The
issue should also have an estimated time in a comment.

@item
Maintainability: hinders developent of LilyPond.  For example,
improvements to the build system, or @qq{helper} python scripts.

@item
Bounty: somebody is willing to pay for the fix.

@item
Warning: graphical output is fine, but lilypond prints a
false/misleading warning message.  Alternately, a warning should
be printed (such as a bar line error), but was not.  Also applies
to warnings when compiling the source code or generating
documentation.

@item
Security: might potentially be used.

@item
Performance: might potentially be used.

@end itemize


@node Adding issues to the tracker
@section Adding issues to the tracker

This should only be done by the Bug Squad or experienced
developers.  Normal users should not do this; instead, they should
follow the guidelines for @rweb{Bug reports}.


@node Checking and verifying issues
@section Checking and verifying issues

After each release (both stable and unstable):

@itemize

@item
Regression test comparison: check the relevant version in
@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}.

@item
Issues to verify:
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}.

@end itemize

Once every two weeks or so:

@itemize

@item
Check for any items with @code{label:patch}.  If it's been more
than a week since the last action on the issue, send an email to
-devel to remind them about it.  If the patch was withdrawn for
more work, then remove the @code{patch} label.

@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch}
@end example

@end itemize

Once every year or so:

@itemize

@item
Checking all regtests: although we have a system for checking the
regtests between two versions, occasionally a bug will slip
through the cracks.  It is therefore good to manually examine all
the regtests (compare the images to the text description).

@item
Checking all issues: we try to mark each Issue @q{fixed} when we
fix it, but occasionally one or two issues will slip through the
cracks.  It is therefore good to check all Issues. If you see the
same (broken) output as the initial report, then simply post a
"Problem still exists in 2.x.y" message to the issue.

@end itemize


@node Summary of project status
@section Summary of project status

The best overview of our current status is given by the grid view:

@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
@end example

Also of interest might be the issues hindering future development:

@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Maintainability&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
@end example

Finally, issues tagged with @code{Frog} indicates a task suitable
for a relatively new contributor.  The time given is a quick
(inaccurate) estimate of the time required for somebody who is
familiar with material in this manual, but does not know anything
else about LilyPond development.

@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
@end example

@node Finding the cause of a regression
@section Finding the cause of a regression

Git has special functionality to help tracking down the exact
commit which causes a problem.  See the git manual page for
@code{git bisect}.  This is a job that non-programmers can do,
although it requires familiarity with git, ability to compile
LilyPond, and generally a fair amount of technical knowledge.

Even if you are not familiar with git or are not able to compile
LilyPond you can still help to narrow down the cause of a regression
simply by downloading the binary releases of different LilyPond
versions and testing them for the regression.  Knowing which version
of LilyPond first exhibited the regression is helpful to a developer
as it shortens the @code{git bisect} procedure described above.

Once a problematic commit is identified, the programmers' job is
much easier.  In fact, for most regression bugs, the majority of
the time is spent simply finding the problematic commit.