On 8/15/10 8:06 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > >> On 8/15/10 7:39 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/15/10 6:48 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> IMO, getting rid of bit-rotted code is always a good idea. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> It only involves creating a separate branch, moving the change there, >>> removing the change from all ongoing development in related areas >>> (and/or postponing work on them until the review process of the bitrot >>> change has come to a close), creating a Rietveld issue, uploading the >>> changes to Rietveld, monitoring all progress on it, repeating a full >>> regtest for any proposed modifications and juggling with >>> merge/cherry-pick while doing the parallel development and so on. >> >> No, you said it was all in one commit. So you have a branch with that >> commit and you keep rebasing it. > > I don't have that branch yet. > >> When uploading patches to Rietveld one can choose whatever commit is >> desired as the reference for the upload, so I think that overlapping >> patches can be handled without too much difficulty. > > Whatever. I'll jump through the hoops for now. I am not confident that > I will consider doing cleanup worth the trouble in future. If you have > to invest those resources, it distracts from what you actually wanted to > be doing.
Well, FWIW, Graham agrees with you and not with me, so you could follow Graham's advice instead of mine. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
