On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Trevor Daniels <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>wrote:
> > Graham Percival wrote Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:40 AM > > 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'd go for (3). Carl can surely deal with patches which change > doc strings, the current task assigned to frogs, without asking > for a code review. Serious changes to code should go through > code review, of course, like those submitted by any developer, > but I guess there will not be many of those from the frog team, > at least not initially. Let's leave anything in-between to Carl's > judgement - if he screws up I'm sure he'll quickly adjust his > criteria! I also vote for option 3. For borderline cases, I'd encourage Carl to post the patches on rietveld, possibly with a comment like "I think this one's fine, so I'll commit it unless someone comments in 2 days" Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
