Re: Make define-builtin-markup{, -list}-command #:category #:properties keywords (issue160048)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 12/3/09 2:47 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Yes, Carl made a mistake.  That's unfortunate, but he's human.
>>> 
>>> So what do you think I am?
>> 
>> I think you're a human.
>> 
>>>> If anything, this incident should show that jumping through hoops
>>>> is even *more* important, not less.
>>> 
>>> If Carl had adhered to the standards demanded from me, there would
>>> have been a review of his code and I could have suggested an
>>> improvement.
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> Actually no, since I had not noticed nor followed the discussion about
> the code.  So I've been fuming more than called for about double
> standards in this case.
> 
>> His mistake wasn't the bad code -- I mean, yes, that was wrong,
>> but I don't consider code mistakes to be *mistakes*.  His mistake
>> was short-circuiting the review process for this patch.
> 
> There are patches that are "obviously right" and a direct improvement.
> If I had been in his place, I'd likely have committed a fix as well.
> I'd likely have used "make && make doc" before doing so, but I doubt I
> would have waited for a review to come in.

make && make doc worked, because the snippet was still in the database and
not updated.

lilypond (regression-test-name) also worked.

make doc-clean && make doc would have failed, but make doc-clean is not
feasible to run for every patch -- it takes too long.

make check is what *should* have been run and was not.

Thanks,

Carl