>> At any rate: we haven't had a protocol for patches not going
>> through the regular process. Maybe we should use the
>> Signed-off-by: convention for such patches, including the original
>> submitter and the LGTM votes? It's probably mostly psychological,
>> but it suggests a bit of accountability/responsibility.
This is OK with me.
> I would like to add to that. With my few contributions to the actual
> LilyPond codebase I was several times hit hard by last-moment
> objections in the countdown stage.
>
> This is totally annoying and also frustrating - but what would be
> the alternative? Obviously there was something that should not go
> into the code base, and the fact that we're so few that not everyone
> has the opportunity to look at all patches immediately should not be
> a "justification" for letting stuff slip through.
I think there is nothing we can do to prevent that.
Werner
