On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > Yes, Carl made a mistake. That's unfortunate, but he's human. > > So what do you think I am?
I think you're a human. > > 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. Yes. And he *should* have adhered to those standards. He saw a bug, thought he had a quick fix, and pushed it without adequate testing. His mistake wasn't the bad code -- I mean, yes, that was wrong, but I don't consider code mistakes to be *mistakes*. His mistake was short-circuiting the review process for this patch. > Are you suggesting that this incident should show that newcomers are to > jump through even higher hoops while the regulars continue to work > efficiently? No. It shows that regular committers *should* jump through the same hoops, and when they don't, Bad Things Happen (tm). I mean, Carl is probably #5 on the "most knowledgeable people about lilypond architecture in the world"; he even *he* can royally screw up with a "simple" patch, then surely a new contributor is even more likely to write bad code. That's why we should have patch reviews and testing. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
