[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:55 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:14:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> > Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
> > process.  I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
> > and whose patches tend to be problematic... but a completely
> > automated, objective approach would remove any personal bias.
> And those who generated more negative karma with their work than the
> average horse in the stables near our house will get banished from
> contributing for two weeks?

No; I'm expecting the Hawthorne effect to take care of it.

> Get real.  When the cure is worse than the symptom, leave it alone.

Well, that would be the question.  If programmers know that there
will be a record of any bad patch submissions, would they be less
likely to contribute?  Or would they be more likely to check their
work before submitting it?

I'm obviously hoping for the latter, but I suppose that the former
is still a logical possibility.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]