[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: github mirror of lilypond?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: github mirror of lilypond?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:21:26 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 1/19/20, 3:33 PM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden> wrote:
>     On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:41 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>     > > I agree.  IMHO, the main repository should stay at Savannah, though.
>     >
>     > I strongly disagree with this.
>     >
>     > If we are serious about code review (and it seems that we are), the
>     > code review has to be integrated with the git hosting system. With the
>     > current setup, there needs to be infrastructure that takes a patch for
>     > review, applies it to source tree, runs tests, and then reports back.
>     > On submission, something has to apply the patch, and push the result
>     > to the git master branch.
>     And come to think of it, it is also the reason for an incredible
>     oddity in our current process which is the "countdown". Normally, once
>     a change has been reviewed as OK and passed CI, it is just submitted.
>     But in the past, they would enter some limbo (because nobody would do
>     the work to submit them), and so we had to institute a countdown
>     process, which means that it takes a minimum of 2 days before a
>     contributor can see their patch go live.
> No, the "countdown" is a last chance for people to comment before the
> patch is approved.  No single individual can approve a patch.
> Multiple reviewers can say it looks good, but a single reviewer can
> point out a problem that requires review.  No specific set of review
> approvals constitute acceptance.
> So "countdown" serves as a warning to anybody who might have issues.
> Essentially "if you don’t comment in the next two days, it will be
> approved.  So if you care, you'd better review it right now."

The countdown is a compromise between contributor and other developers'
needs.  It certainly is a nuisance but has been quite valuable.  The
previous process requiring explicit developer acknowledgment led to
patches "in limbo" for weeks without any feedback.  I have a Guile core
patch that has not gotten a review or comment by Andy Wingo for about
5 years or so now.  In contrast to that, our process is comparably fast
and benign.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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