On 12/3/09 2:47 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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.
make && make doc worked, because the snippet was still in the database and
not updated.
lilypond (regression-test-name) also worked.
make doc-clean && make doc would have failed, but make doc-clean is not
feasible to run for every patch -- it takes too long.
make check is what *should* have been run and was not.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
