On 8/15/10 8:15 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
>
>> <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>
>
> Not the process per se, but try doing this on Rietveld. Those are lots
> of changes in small files. For every single change, you need to tell
> the web interface to show you the file difference. You look at it, it
> looks ok. Now you need to navigate back to the list of changed files,
> remember which file you just looked at, select the next file in the
> list, navigate to its change overview.
Or you can just use j to go to the next file on the list or k to go to the
previous file on the list (or click on those respective links).
I never go back to the main issue page during a review.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
