[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: changes in chord names formatting (1503, 1572) (issue 4981052)

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: changes in chord names formatting (1503, 1572) (issue 4981052)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:14:00 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:10:20PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Sure, understood - but I still don't see why each commit within a
> single issue couldn't be checked accumulatively, rather than just
> applying all three together and only then doing the check.

Because the person checking new patches manually right-clicks on
the "download raw patch", runs "patch -p1 < issue1234.diff",
manually compiles it, etc etc.

correction: after about 4 months of this process, he changed from
"patch -p1" to using "git apply".

Bottom line: you're vastly over-estimating our (collective) skill
and comfort level with git.  It's safe to assume that we're
similarly in the dark ages about many other aspects of software
development.  Over the past 12 months, almost half of our
development effort has come from windows users who have never
contributed to open source before.  They face a pretty steep
learning curve.

> Of course it's more work, but arguably still less work (and less
> noise) than creating an issue per commit.

True, and Patchy could be doing that for us.  The brilliant (if I
may say so myself) of Patchy is that we don't need to teach
everybody how to use moderatly-skilled git commands, we don't need
to fumble around manually clicking on website links, etc etc.  We
don't even need a single person who knows all aspects of Patchy --
as long as people fix little problems with Patchy as we go along,
we can end up with a robust automatic system that does whatever we
want it to.

- Graham

reply via email to

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