[Top][All Lists]

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

patch-reviewing and the i-ching (was Re: sustainable development in Lily

From: Mike Solomon
Subject: patch-reviewing and the i-ching (was Re: sustainable development in LilyPond)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:33:30 +0200
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

On 8/4/10 1:25 PM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:27 AM
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 1) There is no architectural overview and no program logic manual
>>> to
>>> guide new developers through the early stages.
>>> This has the advantage that only experienced and expert
>>> coders able to deduce the design from the source code are
>>> able to contribute significantly, ensuring high quality.
>> I consider that reverse logic.  The problem is that you are likely
>> to
>> have people reinventing the wheel, leading to a loosely connected
>> garden
>> of code written by x, code written by y.... where everybody has
>> his own
>> ways and subroutines for solving particular subtasks.
> Yes; I worded it badly.  I meant, "The only advantage this has
> is that ...".  You correctly point out the outweighing
> disadvantages.
> It was clear, I hope, that I am advocating better documentation,
> not less.
> Trevor

I am a bit lost with respect to what has to be done and who's working on
what, but I've been chipping away as best I can on issues that, to me, seem

I think that Graham's sustainable development presentation is excellent,
especially the part about swag, as I am moving from a wine-drinking country
to a beer-drinking country in two weeks and could use a lilypond bottle
opener.  In parallel to what he says, I feel that another way to get things
done on a more short-term basis (i.e. before 2.14 and before Graham puts a
sustainable plan into place) is to randomly assign issues to willing
participants via a lottery.  Said participant would then be responsible for
stewarding the issue until resolution, which could involve anything from
coordinating efforts on an untouched problem to simply running a test on a
patch that is quite evolved and signaling to one of the developers that it
is ready to be pushed.  It would also be a great way for new folks (like me)
to learn - I chose to work on issue 1173 at pseudo-random (Python's random
library) and learned a great deal in doing so.

If there is sufficient interest in this idea, I think it would be a good way
for newcomers and experienced lilyponders alike to move forward with
outstanding issues.


reply via email to

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