Hello, On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > I don't see this "proposal" (really more of "a set of musings") > going anywhere. There's been a bunch of ideas: > - tool X, tool Y > - make better use of our current tools > - do a survey of what other projects do > but nothing has made a significant amount of people go "yeah, that > the right direction to move in!". > > We're not getting closer to any kind of decision, and what's > worse, we're not even getting closer to figuring out how we would > make any kind of decision. > > > So I propose that we shelve this discussion. If somebody feels > motivated and makes a detailed report about the benefits and > disadvantages of up various other tools, great; if somebody feels > motivated and makes a serious investigation of our *current* tools > (what capabilities are we missing, makes feature requests or bug > reports to the google overlords, etc), great! > > If somebody is feeling optimistic about the discussion and thinks > I'm totally off-base on this, we can talk about that... but I'm > thinking that it needs some serious thought and energy, and at the > moment I think I should be putting my energy towards removing pain > points in our development for which we've already agreed on what > to do.
Speaking for myself and (I think) people like Colin, Phil and Dymtryo the biggest headache for bug-squadders and patch-testers is simply the easy correlation between Rietveld and Google code. I know we've already stated that. If this discussion has only done one thing it has highlighted the extra work that this takes and the potential for existing patches to wait and wait. There seems to be four basic cases of how 'stuff' gets created in this regard. 1. Email from person (I'd like LP to do this, or LP breaks when you do X) 2. Rietveld issue with no tracker 3. Tracker issue with no Rietveld (usually RFEs or Devs/experienced users who spot a bug) 4. Rietveld and Tracker are created at the same time Could I therefore suggest two things? 1 Devs who put up a Rietveld put up a tracker too and use the *exact* same title (even if it is very cryptic) the description can be simply the link to the Rietveld URL. if you can also cut;/paste the Rietveld comment into the tracker great but it is not essential. Then leave all the other stuff (labels, owners, tags etc) to the bug squadders or people like myself as I think that might be what is putting people off using the tracker (what label should it be? am I going to cause a lot of huffing and puffing I use Type-Ugly when it is Type-Script and is it Patch-New or Patch-review? and so on. or 2. Devs who put up Rietvelds just add something in the comment like 'this needs a tracker item', or 'no tracker item for this yet' as I realise that getting code up for initial review is more important than the 'admin/paperwork' in many respects, but at least that line gives us a chance, then when we see this we can add the tracker. is that acceptable or am I flogging the proverbial dead horse :) -- -- James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
