Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > 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.
Actually no, since I had not noticed nor followed the discussion about the code. So I've been fuming more than called for about double standards in this case. > 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. There are patches that are "obviously right" and a direct improvement. If I had been in his place, I'd likely have committed a fix as well. I'd likely have used "make && make doc" before doing so, but I doubt I would have waited for a review to come in. In my book, the main mistake was not checking the patch to compile. That messes up git bisect for finding problems as I have been told elsewhere. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
