Urs,
On 21 June 2013 09:40, Urs Liska <lilyli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 18.06.2013 21:23, schrieb James: > > On 18/06/13 19:47, Urs Liska wrote: >> >>> Am 15.06.2013 10:10, schrieb Urs Liska: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> as discussed here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/** >>>> html/lilypond-user/2013-06/**msg00342.html<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-06/msg00342.html> >>>> The definition of identifier names in http://www.lilypond.org/doc/** >>>> v2.17/Documentation/notation/**file-structure.html<http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/file-structure.html>is >>>> slightly misleading. >>>> I think applying the attached patch would make it clearer. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Urs >>>> >>> Nobody bothering accepting or at lest commenting a free patch >>> contribution? >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> bug-lilypond mailing list >>> bug-lilypond@gnu.org >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/bug-lilypond<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond> >>> >> What's the google tracker number? >> >> I don't recall testing this patch. >> >> Did it just get thrown onto the list or did they follow the process for >> submitting patches? >> >> >> I don't know if that comment is meant pejorative, but: > This was a bug report with a suggestion for a solution in the form of an > attached patch. > So it presumably matches your description of "just get thrown on the list". > > Urs > > It wasn't meant pejoratively at all - I find sarcasm (gentle or otherwise) really doesn't travel well (across nationalities/cultures - too much misinterpretation) so I am being straight. Generally a patch won't get reviewed until it has been tested against current master, it won't get tested until it has a tracker linking to a reitveld issue. The testing I do is scripted. So you can create a tracker manually if you like (and don't want to use the git-cl tools we provide see; http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers(reviews)) then add the rietveld link so the scripts can download the patch to test and then it is in the system (so to speak). if you just say 'here's a patch' and send it to dev, it may or may not get looked at - depending who has the time to take your patch, apply it to their own tree and test it doesn't break anything. If the person submitting the patch follows the standard process then it definitely will get reviewed. James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
