Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:13:50AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> In fact, if you have to
>> do half a dozen of iterations before getting things actually right on
>> the somewhat more than superficial level provided by our tests, you'll
>> have gained lots of good Karma on the road.
>
> I was thinking that each patch would generate its own karam, so each
> of those uploads that failed the tests would be -2 karma (or whatever
> the figure is), with only the final upload giving a +1.

The point was patches that did not fail the upload, because in spite of
being horribly broken, they were massaged long enough to past the test
suite.

>> We need more human feedback.
>
> All my years of observing lilypond development suggests that
> saying "we need xyz" is a recipe for nothing happening.

I prefer nothing happening over the wrong things happening.  Call me
conservative.

> But hey, I'm not totally wedded to the idea of tracking karma, so
> meh.  As long as I'm not personally playing nursemaid for people
> who don't run the basic tests, I don't mind if the patch-tester(s)
> want to keep on warning about flawed patches.

We have very little nursemaid material here, I am afraid.  Do you really
think that somebody who misses registering the responses on his issue
report for whatever reason (which caused the last temper drop by me)
will get phased by an arbitrary _number_ being displayed on the issue
page, based on some accumulating metric?

And will people be more motivated if they figure that their own Karma
life savings are minuscule compared to Mike's daily fluctuations?

-- 
David Kastrup