On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > >>> What is the general stance towards cleanup (of unused dormant stuff >>> never documented for general use) like that as long as it is contained >>> in separate commits and not intermingled with other changes? ?>> >>> Should it >>> be wrapped in a full review process? >> >> I think so. The full review process for removing old stuff is >> generally very short and sweet (post the patch, somebody important >> says OK), so I don't think it hurts a bit to do it.
<david> we don't *have* a "full review process" in any meaningful sense of the term. Especially not for "cleaning up" things. As evidence, consider: http://codereview.appspot.com/1724041/show - big initial patch - lots of comments about splitting up the patch into smaller, easily-understood portions - contributor (an unknown person, BTW) does what we ask - NOBODY bloody looks at it. The reworked patch has been rotting away for almost 2 months. That's a huge black mark against our development process. </david> I haven't complained about this previously because I didn't see any point... I mean, it's not like we have developers sitting around on their thumbs. We've all been working on new features or 2.14 stuff or the like. Also, there's 12 other patches, many from "top tier" developers, waiting for review. No point fussing about a relatively low-priority patch. Besides, I don't like complaining about anything that I'm not willing to fix myself, and I haven't had a chance to get familiar with that side of lilypond. > So yes, it does hurt in my opinion. Agreed. IMO, as long as the cleanup patches are on their own distinct commits, go ahead. That said, I'm not a good authority on .c and .scm changes to lilypond. > Personally, I lean towards thinking that stuff that is not used within > Lilypond, has no user-level documentation and has never been in the > regression tests or snippets should be fair game. I agree. As a general rule of thumb, if the docs compile from scratch, the regtests are not affected, and you honestly believe that it's unused code, go ahead and remove it. If somebody uses lots of weird scheme stuff and really wants them to work, they should make a regtest. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
