On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:20:33PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > convenient). It should only contain patches that have completed a > > countdown, and/or patches that the author wishes to skip the > > review process. > > Shrug. That means to me that this patch is dead. There is no > conceivable reason that anybody should change its status to anything > else.
I already changed the status back to Patch-new when I removed my objection. > We have its current state "Patch-new" -> Patch has received no obvious > checks Of course, I checked the patch. But even if I decide to put the > "Patch-review" state on myself, this will merely mean: "Patch has passed > obvious checks, and needs review". Well, it is under review. Who > should decide to change its need of review, and why? - if somebody reviews the patch and finds problems (ideally solid technical problems), they change it to patch-needs_work. - if it's still patch-review when Colin makes the next countdown, it becomes patch-countdown. > And in any case, it is _impossible_ to let the patch series get checked > before having a plan for which version the convertrules.py needs to be. > After applying the reviewed patch, one needs to autoconvert before a > check can be made. Right. This is a special case of having a collective convert-ly clustermao. I started a new email thread for that. Short answer: just make a patch that combines all your rules, we'll ram that through (quite possibly avoiding the review process), and get on with life because this has become a farce. - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
