(sorry Joe, I messed up your email. Fixed now)
Hi guys, How much oversight should the Frog patches receive? These patches have been reviewed by Carl. They compile cleanly, adhere to our code standards (to the extent that Carl understands them), and appear to fix the bug. I see three proposals: 1) Let Carl commit whatever patches he has reviewed. 2) Require that each patch be reviewed by a "Core developer" (Han-Wen, Jan, or Joe). 3) Let Carl commit whatever he's fairly certain is good, and ask for help with whatever he doesn't understand. If somebody like Werner or Reinhold says "sure, looks ok", then he goes ahead and commits. I would *really* like the turnaround to be 3 days or less. One of the reasons that GDP worked so well is that contributers received prompt feedback; it's very disheartening to have your work waiting in limbo for a week. I know that option #2 with a 3-day turnaround places more burden on the core developers, but I'm hoping that it would be worth it. After a few months of being the FrogMeister, Carl should be familiar enough with lilypond that he can approve + commit simple patches on his own. By the end of GOP, we should have enough people knowing enough about lilypond that we should be safe from the dreaded open source "Getting Hit By A Bus(tm)" phenominum. (aside: a quick google search reveals that this phrase is common in North American businesses. The first time I heard it was from Linus Torvalds, so I assumed it was an open-source thing.) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
