On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:37:26AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > It's his responsibility because he's in charge of the Frogs > > project. Or rather: it's his responsibility because I thought we > > needed somebody to do this job, and I managed to convince him to > > do it. > > If the job description includes committing stuff on your own > responsibility that you are not comfortable with, like stuff changing > the parser substantially (or whatever else), then the respective > definitions do not seem to fit the task space well.
No -- it's his responsibility to pester other developers on behalf of the patch+contributor, until there's "enough" developers who have agreed with the patch. He can determine what consistutes "enough". I readily admit that this is a rather tall order, but Carl's done a fantastic job of it over the past year and a half. I'm sure that he would appreciate more help. > So I think that either the definition of a frog (namely if I fit it) or > the responsibilities of the frog master (if it means being responsible > for the committing of any patches originating from a frog) need to be > thought over. But it does not seem that the current responsibility > defaults lead to results many people are happy with. The situation for Frogs isn't any worse than the situation for normal developers. Both groups have patches -- sometimes clear, fairly obviously-ok patches like 1095 -- languishing in oblivion for weeks. I think the situation for Frogs will improve when the general situation improves, so I'm not worried about them. Let's focus on improving the general situation by getting more patch-reviewing. Oh, and huge discussions like this are the *opposite* of patch-reviewing. I mean, reviewing 1095 is on my TODO list, but right now I'm writing this email instead of working on that. We need a balance between discussion about patches vs. discussions about development. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
