Re: Stop issue verification?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 26/10/2020 à 17:07, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> commenting only on one particular point:
>
> Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 20:43 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > In my opinion, the limited total working time of the development
> > team is better spent on fixing bugs (there are plenty of easy ones
> > for newbies) than undertaking this task.
> I don't think that issue verification requires development knowledge,
> quite the opposite as it was meant to be handled by non-programmers.
> I do see some benefit in making sure that the original issue is indeed
> fixed with the released binaries, but as it would not be me who does
> the work, I don't have a strong opinion here.
>
> Jonas

Hi Jonas,

Well, in theory, you are absolutely right. In practice though,
the last rounds of verification were done by Federico, Carl,
Kevin, Trevor, Michael and me, who all qualify at least a bit
as programmers or have other roles in documentation, etc.

To take a concrete example,

https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/644

clearly required basic programming knowledge. I needed
to be able to run lilypond-book from the command line,
and use a script to generate a lytex input file containing
a very large number of small snippets; and verify that
the file I had generated triggered the bug in previous
versions of lilypond-book (since there was no example
on the issue), which in turn required the ability to
manage concurrent installations of LilyPond. None of this
is overly complicated, but as this situation happens
relatively often…

We might decide that this kind of issues ought not
to be verified. Since regression tests are added for
all issues that can be easily demonstrated using a
minimal example, the procedure would come close to
checking the regression test comparison that is
released. And that can also be handled by non-programmers…

Cheers,
Jean