On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:27 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > > Just wanted to throw this observation out: the current work on optional > arguments is one area where working with Rietveld is getting really > strained. The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussing and > improving a single patch/commit. > > The current patch series consists of one infrastructure patch (allowing > pushing tokens with values) and "the rest". > > But there are about five different other (co-developed) infrastructure > patches that the whole depends on. Making those independent issues > would mean that you could not apply the main Rietveld patch to > origin/master and check it out. > > So my workflow when on a larger Rietveld-reviewed patch like this > consists of silently pushing required infrastructure/cleanup patches > without discussion or review in order to keep origin/master in a state > where one can meaningfully discuss the large single patch on top without > getting side-tracked in unrelated issues. > > That's not really pretty. >
For what it's worth, I run into the same problem from time to time - I recently sent an e-mail to the list about a 1-line patch to fix kneed beams that I needed to apply for other work. Ditto for a variable-name changing patch. I think that if it is really infrastructure / clean-up / small, then if you send an e-mail to the list with a heads up and nobody complains within 12ish hours (and/or if you get a "LGTM"), then it is OK to push. The definition of infrastructure / clean-up / small is, of course, up for debate, but I think that people have a pretty good sense of what needs review and what doesn't. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
