On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:25:27PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham, you wrote Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:43 AM > > >LARGE PATCHES > > > >SHORT PATCHES > > I think just CODE PATCHES for these. It's > hard to think of a meaningful difference. > Number of affected files, number of changed > lines, lines of changes C++ and/or scm?
Combination of all the above? I don't want to have any criteria that would take a non-programmer more than 10 seconds to decide which a patch falls into. But I'm fine with just CODE PATCHES. > Or maybe split into ENHANCEMENTS and BUG FIXES. > Enhancements generally will require more > thought and discussion. Will it be obvious to a non-programmer (i.e the patch meister) to decide which is which? OTOH, maybe we should just require that any patch clearly states which it is, and immediately reject any patch whose commit message wasn't clear enough for a non-programmer. I'm not too fond of that last idea, though -- I don't want to burden really technically-skilled programmers with lots of red tape. We want to encourage those people to be producing patches, not discouraging them with extra non-technical work. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel