Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Are you suggesting that this incident should show that newcomers are >> to jump through even higher hoops while the regulars continue to work >> efficiently? > > No. It shows that regular committers *should* jump through the same > hoops, and when they don't, Bad Things Happen (tm). I mean, Carl is > probably #5 on the "most knowledgeable people about lilypond > architecture in the world"; he even *he* can royally screw up with a > "simple" patch, then surely a new contributor is even more likely to > write bad code. > > That's why we should have patch reviews and testing.
I keep asking for the testing, with little success so far. I still don't know whether the changes from a week ago solve the memory leak/corruption problem reported with a previous version. I might have mentioned that I have not been able to verify the original report, since it worked and I got no recipe to make it fail in the reported way. Nicolas has put up a review just today for which I am grateful, but it focuses on programming style questions. It would be a bit of a nuisance to invest a lot of time into polishing the style of obliterating marker-init.ly when I have no idea whether the basic approach will work at all. I have no working test to check. At least Neil had such a test, but I am missing the information needed for reproducing it. If I am barking up the wrong tree, making the tree prettier is not going to be a worthwhile exercise. A "yes, this fixed the memory problem" would be a great help. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
