Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 8/15/10 7:39 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: >> >>> On 8/15/10 6:48 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> IMO, getting rid of bit-rotted code is always a good idea. >>> >>>> Should it >>>> be wrapped in a full review process? >>> >>> I think so. The full review process for removing old stuff is >>> generally very short and sweet (post the patch, somebody important >>> says OK), so I don't think it hurts a bit to do it. >> >> It only involves creating a separate branch, moving the change there, >> removing the change from all ongoing development in related areas >> (and/or postponing work on them until the review process of the bitrot >> change has come to a close), creating a Rietveld issue, uploading the >> changes to Rietveld, monitoring all progress on it, repeating a full >> regtest for any proposed modifications and juggling with >> merge/cherry-pick while doing the parallel development and so on. > > No, you said it was all in one commit. So you have a branch with that > commit and you keep rebasing it.
I don't have that branch yet. > When uploading patches to Rietveld one can choose whatever commit is > desired as the reference for the upload, so I think that overlapping > patches can be handled without too much difficulty. Whatever. I'll jump through the hoops for now. I am not confident that I will consider doing cleanup worth the trouble in future. If you have to invest those resources, it distracts from what you actually wanted to be doing. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
