Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > On the other hand, you obviously have too much time, David, to write > such long replies
I wish I did. So you suggest I'd rather _not_ make point-to-point replies to negative reviews and hope that eventually somebody else figures out that the points are not valid with respect to the reviewed code? Fat chance. But anyway, ignoring a negative review basically _was_ my second attempt after commenting the original code did not help _anything_ at all (and nothing Han-Wen wrote would suggest he even looked at the comments I wrote to address his concerns): I completely junked the whole verification and moved its functionality elsewhere, in a different language, because the first reply made clear that there was no chance that I could get the C++ code doing the task in the most straightforward and efficient way matched to the task at hand accepted before blowing my top. So I scrapped the whole thing (pretty annoyed because it was already working perfectly and documented extensively _on_ request) rather than bothering to argue about it, and it helped exactly zilch. After three iterations, one of them a complete change of strategy, nothing in the reviews suggests that anything but the very first version was even being looked at. Do you really think I have the time to spare to do three times the necessary work without people even noticing? No, I haven't. I also don't have the time to rant and have everybody spit on me. But I was pretty much out of other options. I know _no_ other project that makes it so absurd and hard to be permitted to contribute. There are double standards for insiders and outsiders, and it is hell for outsiders to get anything but trivial code accepted. Most other people just go away, or they behave themselves long enough (or don't venture beyond trivial code long enough) to become insiders. I prefer getting work _done_, but it does not seem like this option is available to me within this project. I'll likely stop using the Rietveld process since it restricts reviews mostly to inside people with Google accounts, and is mostly not making people actually try out the code. Instead I'll just post patches on the list again. git is tailored to this workflow and it's dead easy to let it process patch series with "git am", in a different branch or otherwise. Perhaps that will lead to a more diversified response. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
