[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Patch:Doc-enhancement identifiers

From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Patch:Doc-enhancement identifiers
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:31:32 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6

Am 21.06.2013 12:24, schrieb James:

On 21 June 2013 09:40, Urs Liska <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:

    Am 18.06.2013 21:23, schrieb James:

        On 18/06/13 19:47, Urs Liska wrote:

            Am 15.06.2013 10:10, schrieb Urs Liska:


                as discussed here:
                The definition of identifier names in
                is slightly misleading.
                I think applying the attached patch would make it clearer.


            Nobody bothering accepting or at lest commenting a free
            patch contribution?
            bug-lilypond mailing list
            address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>

        What's the google tracker number?

        I don't recall testing this patch.

        Did it just get thrown onto the list or did they follow the
        process for submitting patches?

    I don't know if that comment is meant pejorative, but:
    This was a bug report with a suggestion for a solution in the form
    of an attached patch.
    So it presumably matches your description of "just get thrown on
    the list".


It wasn't meant pejoratively at all - I find sarcasm (gentle or otherwise) really doesn't travel well (across nationalities/cultures - too much misinterpretation) so I am being straight.

Generally a patch won't get reviewed until it has been tested against current master, it won't get tested until it has a tracker linking to a reitveld issue. The testing I do is scripted.

So you can create a tracker manually if you like (and don't want to use the git-cl tools we provide see; http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers (reviews)) then add the rietveld link so the scripts can download the patch to test and then it is in the system (so to speak).

Do I understand correctly that using git-cl doesn't require push access to the git repository? That's a way to get patches in the code base without asking for push access?
Then I'll examine it closer.

Thanks for the clarification.

if you just say 'here's a patch' and send it to dev, it may or may not get looked at - depending who has the time to take your patch, apply it to their own tree and test it doesn't break anything.

If the person submitting the patch follows the standard process then it definitely will get reviewed.


reply via email to

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