I'll risk joining the discussion. I see valid points from both of you. I agree that it's better to fix a broken design than to patch it with red tape. However, if we only accepted code changes that were implementing the Ultimate Solution, i'm afraid that the development process would grind to a halt - Ultimate Solutions are obvioulsly best, but they take much much more time to implement, and usually only experts can write them.
This should not be an excuse for broken code, but i think that we can accept patches that are iterations towards Ultimate Solution. As i see it, Mike's patch doesn't make matters worse - it's just a piece of duct tape to make a temporary solution (i.e. current messy code) less broken. I think that we could add a FIXME to it and accept it, because it's not making future rewrite harder (at least it seems so to me). Also, we're trying to make a stable release soon, so this is not a good time to start rewriting big pieces of code. https://codereview.appspot.com/7453046/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
