Re: changes in chord names formatting (1503, 1572) (issue 4981052)

[Adam Spiers]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:14:00PM +0000, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:10:20PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > Sure, understood - but I still don't see why each commit within a
> > single issue couldn't be checked accumulatively, rather than just
> > applying all three together and only then doing the check.

[snipped]

> Bottom line: you're vastly over-estimating our (collective) skill
> and comfort level with git.  It's safe to assume that we're
> similarly in the dark ages about many other aspects of software
> development.

Hey, give yourselves some credit - at least you're not using CVS;
*that's* what I would label as dark ages :-)  git is still relatively
new for many many people.  Also, being short on experience doesn't
make it impossible, it just means it will take a bit longer to get
there.

> Over the past 12 months, almost half of our
> development effort has come from windows users who have never
> contributed to open source before.  They face a pretty steep
> learning curve.

Sure - I'm finding this a reasonably steep curve, despite the superb
documentation etc., and I've been working with F/OSS since 1994.  I
think that's just the nature of the beast - Lilypond is a large,
complex codebase, with many facets to a necessarily complex
development process.  Sure, it can be improved, but I don't think it's
worth beating ourselves up about it either.

> > Of course it's more work, but arguably still less work (and less
> > noise) than creating an issue per commit.
> 
> True, and Patchy could be doing that for us.  The brilliant (if I
> may say so myself) of Patchy is that we don't need to teach
> everybody how to use moderatly-skilled git commands, we don't need
> to fumble around manually clicking on website links, etc etc.  We
> don't even need a single person who knows all aspects of Patchy --
> as long as people fix little problems with Patchy as we go along,
> we can end up with a robust automatic system that does whatever we
> want it to.

I don't know Patchy, but I agree it certainly sounds like a lot of
this work could be automated.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration