Graham, you wrote Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:11 AM
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:25:27PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham, you wrote Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:43 AM
>LARGE PATCHES
>
>SHORT PATCHES
I think just CODE PATCHES for these. It's
hard to think of a meaningful difference.
Number of affected files, number of changed
lines, lines of changes C++ and/or scm?
Combination of all the above? I don't want to have any criteria
that would take a non-programmer more than 10 seconds to decide
which a patch falls into. But I'm fine with just CODE PATCHES.
Yes, that's what I meant. Although I have a
preference now for the following ...
Or maybe split into ENHANCEMENTS and BUG FIXES.
Enhancements generally will require more
thought and discussion.
Will it be obvious to a non-programmer (i.e the patch meister) to
decide which is which?
If the patch is related to an issue then the
issue Type should indicate whether it is an
enhancement or not. I suggest Type-enhancement
and Type-other and any patches which don't have
a related issue should be listed as ENHANCEMENTS.
Anything else as BUG FIXES. I think Colin
already inspects the related issue, so that
shouldn't be much more work.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
