[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly |
Date: |
Thu, 27 May 2010 15:05:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> We have 10 issues with patches attached; 3 of them fixing Critical
>> issues. Some people might view this as a positive thing -- hey, we
>> have people sending fixes! -- but I'm counting this as "ugly" because
>> it means that we're not supporting each other enough. I'd like to
>> see a more effort put towards reviewing and finishing patches.
>
> This is one of the few areas left where we still rely upon Han-Wen a
> lot, and do not (AFAICS) a properly-organized team as we (kinda) have
> wrt bugs, frogs, docs etc. The deal with David's recent patches show
> that IMHO: although nobody really objected with merging his patches
> (and although diplomacy is certainly not his strongest point),
Looks like there is a job opening for patch diplomat. No, I won't
apply.
> nobody really felt that actually committing the patches was their job.
The problem is that committing a patch suggests some basic
responsibility. If a patch is not within the comfort zone of
prospective committers, it tends to rot.
> Which brings up the question of the tools we use:
> - Rietveld doesn't allow to keep track of lilypond-related patches,[1]
> - [Patch]-marked mails on -devel don't work,
How comes?
> - "Patch"-tagged issued on the tracker don't seem to work either...
> It has been suggested in the past (by you) that we could use another
> mailing list, either specifically for patches-reviewing, or on the
> contrary for all non-patch-related discussions that usually clutter
> the -devel list.
I think that the developer list is for development, and that includes
patches.
I also think that "Signed-off-by" tends to work somewhat more formally
than "LGTM" does.
> I've been reading (actually, discovering) the CG over the past few
> weeks, and I have to say it seems quite complete and up-to-date to me.
It does not help with explaining the internals of Lilypond all too much,
but then nothing does right now.
> On a personal note, I'm sorry for not having been more available this
> year. I can't wait to work on LilyPond again!
In a healthy project, contributors come and go. If you instead only see
the same faces leaving and returning, something is amiss that makes
starting to contribute hard.
--
David Kastrup
- state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Graham Percival, 2010/05/26
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Valentin Villenave, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Graham Percival, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Graham Percival, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Graham Percival, 2010/05/27
- Re: state of the release: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/27