On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 03:45:09PM -0600, Colin Campbell wrote: > > Given the above, perhaps it would be wise to defer any formal Patch > Meister role until we have decided how (and if) patches are to be > recorded. I can carry on with keeping an eye on the tracker, but > anything else would require either manually logging postings on > -devel or periodic manual scans of each (known) developer's patches > on Reitveld.
What about discussing this sooner rather than later? Next wednesday is already marked for Phil's "build system output": http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html but we could begin the patch handling discussion on 13 July. That's only 2 days after I return to Canada, so I'm not likely to have a good proposal ready. Could you write one? Phil wrote his build system proposal; it would be great if you could write a similar one for patch handling. Remarks from the CG: Patch review tool: Reitveld is inconvenient in some respects: it requires a google account, and there’s no way to see all patches relating to lilypond. Should we switch to something like gerritt? http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1184 (prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours) More elabortation: - what are the "patch review" frameworks out there? - how well do they support git? automatically tracking patches? ease of making reviews? etc. - what kind of manual administration is required for each tool? - what policies should we have? what should/must developers do? what should/must reviewers do? what else is there left to do? Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel