Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Undocumented code is not maintainable. Throwing it out is a matter of >> sanity if it can't get documented, and it apparently can't. It >> apparently can't even get questioned or discussed. > > We cannot throw out code if that makes LilyPond stop working. Sorry. > >> How do you suppose that getting new core developers is going to work? > > I don't know; people like Joe Neeman just show up one day with a large > patch that works, is well-thought out, and solves new problems, and > they do it without sending endless mail.
I suppose you told him to put his patch on Rietveld and let it rot there. > It has certainly never worked the way you are attempting right now. So the way is to just show up one day with a large patch that works and is well-thought out. Which _is_, by the way, pretty much the state of the patch I delivered on Rietveld for unifying the syntax of make-builtin-markup-command and make-markup-command (if you simply omit the last change where I threw out the module stuff altogether, by the way following _your_ suggestion, and which works inexplicably on my system but not those of others, maybe because of different g++/guile versions, but nobody bothers telling me theirs, so I don't know). But those people who would be qualified to review it can't be bothered. Yes, it does not work the way I am attempting right now. You are quite right about that. Very right. But it is the way _you_ and Nicolas told me I should use. Is this still about code and procedures or about my ugly face? All the best, -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
