Re: github mirror of lilypond?

[Urs Liska]

Am Montag, den 20.01.2020, 16:53 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > > > Han-Wen has recently pushed a bunch of changes directly to
> > > > > Rietveld, most of them quite uncontroversial.  I assume that
> > > > > this
> > > > > is as good as an e-mail :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thus suggest that after his patches have been reviewed,
> > > > 
> > > > How are they going to get reviewed when there is nothing
> > > > pointing to
> > > > them?  How would anyone including Han-Wen know when the review
> > > > phase
> > > > ends?
> > > 
> > > Well, as has been pointed out, pull requests at github don't have
> > > 'review phases', and what we have here is comparable IMHO.
> > > 
> > > One developer (or maybe two, just to be sure) acknowledges the
> > > patch,
> > > and that's it.  Kind of a highway solution for trivial things.
> > 
> > Trivial things from a developer with push access can be just
> > pushed.
> > Complex or otherwise contential things warrant a chance for
> > developers
> > to take a look at it.  "Half a chance" seems an unnecessary
> > complication.
> 
> At any rate: we haven't had a protocol for patches not going through
> the
> regular process.  Maybe we should use the Signed-off-by: convention
> for
> such patches, including the original submitter and the LGTM
> votes?  It's
> probably mostly psychological, but it suggests a bit of
> accountability/responsibility.
> 

I would like to add to that. With my few contributions to the actual
LilyPond codebase I was several times hit hard by last-moment
objections in the countdown stage.

This is totally annoying and also frustrating - but what would be the
alternative? Obviously there was something that should not go into the
code base, and the fact that we're so few that not everyone has the
opportunity to look at all patches immediately should not be a
"justification" for letting stuff slip through.