Comment #7 on issue 2171 by m...@apollinemike.com: Patch: Implements DOM-id
property for grobs.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2171
I don't think it's good practice to unilaterally bounce patches from
staging based on one's personal opinion of the quality of the patch,
especially when the patch has had a human LGTM from the best SVG developer
on the team.
The patch has documentation (the doc-string of the property) that describes
what it does and currently lilypond has no regtests for the svg backend - I
don't even know what these regtests would look like or how this property
would/could be tested aside from just setting it (it doesn't have any
influence in postscript files). I was about to e-mail James to talk to him
about writing up some documentation about backend-divergent properties
(like embedded-ps, which also doesn't have a regtest).
The purpose of the patch was written in the commit message.
I have lost 20 minutes writing this message in addition to the time spent
trying to figure out what was wrong with my repo before I saw your message
about reverting the patch, and I will lose time re-preparing and re-pushing
this after it goes through a review cycle. Of course, when talking about
lost time, it is important not to forget the time that other developers
invariably lose cleaning up after someone's bad work, and I understand that
this was your reason for reverting the patch. But I do not believe this to
be bad work and I think that, as a community, all of us should avoid making
unilateral decisions with respect to staging.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
