|
From: | Colin Campbell |
Subject: | Re: build system work |
Date: | Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:23:36 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
On 11-03-04 02:09 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:On 11-03-04 01:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/patch-handlingFor the sake of keeping an eye on the issues list, looking for "patch-review" then applying the test as listed, I'm pretty comfortable with offering to take that on, Graham, especially if it frees up more highly-leveraged time than mine.Excellent! Although it's the other way around... and I see that the CG is misleading on this point. You should look at all *non* patch-review issues, and see if they "deserve" to be patch-review. Developers aren't expected to look at patches that aren't patch-review. - Any Patch-new should be categorized as Patch-review (if it passes the tests), or Patch-needs_work if not. - Any Patch-needs_work or Patch-abandoned that has an updated version of the patch, should be tested to see if it can be Patch-review. For this point, you need to skim lilypond-devel to see what's been updated. I'll think about a CG patch tomorrow... actually, could you make one? That'll be a quick test of your git setup, and your understanding of the issue, and also saves me 15 minutes having to think of how to phrase it in the CG. PS I'm fairly certain that at the moment, all "needs_work" issues do not have any "more recent" drafts that you need to look at.
Actually, and before I go stepping on toes in all directions, I wouldn't mind some guidance on a couple of things, please. CG 12.2 Meisters describes the Frog Meister as being responsible for code patches from (relatively) inexperienced contributors, basically shepherding the patches through the review and acceptance process and pushing when finally accepted. However, CG 8.6 Patch Handling talks about a Patch Meister with possible helpers; is this what you were talking about, Graham, and is there any duplication here? I've cleaned out a lot of old -devel mail, so I don't recall the results of a discussion a year or so ago about patch handling, and I've no interest in adding more bureaucracy. Another possible discussion would centre on the link between the bug squad and patches: in many ways, patches arise in response to bug squaddies creating issues, so perhaps Phil Holmes needs to have input here. To be clear, I've no worries about taking on the (clarified) task, I just don't want to step on toes; I also don't think a patch meister would need help, given the role of the bug squad and the devel community: it's mostly a nanny function, just making sure we all play nice and look after each other.
At any rate, how do you feel about creating a new mail account called address@hidden which would be forwarded to whomever has the Patch-Meister role. Also, the CG and reitveld would require that address@hidden be copied when a patch is created or revised. That way, the patch meister can filter mail, and the role can be swapped around for vacations, ABENDs, and so forth.
Colin -- The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |