Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:02:48AM -0600, Colin Campbell wrote: >> In the interests of 'get it done and make the paper work agree', >> would you and Graham let me know which issues/patches are going >> through slightly different channels? > > To be honest, I have no clue. > >> I gather that most or all of this would be Rietveld only, so >> it's essentially invisible to the policy weeny, but if I can >> stay out of the way, I'd be glad to turn the blind eye. > > I think the essential bit is the same. > - when it's time for a countdown, > 1. pick a bunch of patches with Patch-review. > 2. announce them > - when the countdown is done, look at any patches with > Patch-countdown, and then either: > 3. if there are complaints, change it to patch-needs_work > 4. otherwise, change it to patch-push > > If a patch jumps from patch-new to fixed, or from patch-review to > fixed, or whatever, that shouldn't change anything as far as > you're concerned. When making the countdown you only care about > "patch-review" items; when finishing the countdown you only care > about "patch-countdown" items.
Yup. Uh, Graham? I think we need a version number bump. I can create and apply conversion rules nevertheless (convert-ly is not bothered about the versions of the Lilypond executable), but I think when the version numbers in the regtests overtake the executable, the executable might get annoyed. Regardless of how eager I am breaking the rules, I don't think I should check the next syntax-changing patch before that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
