Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:35:49PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> I have been told by Graham that the segfault from script-column.cc was >> what precluded reviews of my older patch set. > > To clarify, I was giving a good explanation of what other > programmers were working on. I think their priorities were > absolutely in the right place. > >> Even though there was no report in the bug tracker to go by. > > If we expect a bug to be fixed within days, there's no need for a > bug tracker report. > >> Your first commit did not even compile. If you don't jump through any >> review hoops for your code, why should I for _your_ code? > > Yes, Carl made a mistake. That's unfortunate, but he's human.
So what do you think I am? > He remains the best person for the job, and has my complete > confidence. I am not saying that Carl is not doing a good job. I am saying that the hurdles placed before would-be contributors are keeping them from doing a good job as well and are in rather demotivating disagreement what the people actually working on the code submit themselves to. > If anything, this incident should show that jumping through hoops > is even *more* important, not less. If Carl had adhered to the standards demanded from me, there would have been a review of his code and I could have suggested an improvement. Are you suggesting that this incident should show that newcomers are to jump through even higher hoops while the regulars continue to work efficiently? When there is not even sufficient personnel to check the hoops regularly for stuck newcomers? Asking me to put up a review for an improvement of Carl's patch is putting the cart before the horse. No, I won't jump through Carl's hoops. I have enough of my own. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
