Re: issue verification

[Michael Käppler]

Am 18.09.2020 um 13:07 schrieb Michael Käppler:
> Am 18.09.2020 um 11:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> > I don't know if this isn't clear, but just to state the original point
> > of verifying issues.
> >
> > If the change is claimed to fix a bug, we compile the previously buggy
> > code with the release in which the bug is claimed fixed and check that
> > the bug is no longer there.  It it has really disappeared, we change
> > the status of the issue from Fixed to Verified.  i.e. we are certain
> > that the bug is no longer there.
> >
> > If the change is to provide updated functionality, then it can be
> > really quite hard to verify the new functionality, and in any case the
> > patch review system should do that.  So we simply check the patch was
> > pushed into the claimed build.  If it's clear that it was, we mark the
> > status as Verified.
> >
> > That was the original intention of verifying issues.
> Thank you, Phil,
> that confirms my previous thoughts.
>
> I can start with verifying issues for 2.21.2 today.
Just started, some further thoughts:

1. Having looked at only four issues now, there were already two that
described bugs, but lacked a description how to reproduce the problem.
See #6001 with a link to a very long thread on lilypond-devel and
#5995 with no clear error description. ('clear' in the sense of
understandable
for people that want to help verifying fixes and are not necessarily
involved with
coding.

2. Some issues cannot be verified with the actual releases since they
refer to special functionality like the GS API, which is not active in
the releases.  (See #5996)

3. Some issues can only be verified with special tools
(See #5983)

Cheers,
Michael