On 11/3/11 1:13 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > >> >> My understanding is that Jan insisted on the script matching >> emacs' formatting, but as long as that's done he won't object. >> (come to think of it, that may have been private email after the >> main discussion died down) >> >> It's a shame that emacs doesn't support the "official extension >> language of GNU", otherwise we could just use their .elisp >> indentation directly. :( > >Hm? Emacs uses scheme-mode for .scm files. Where is the problem with >that? .elisp files aren't valid Guile files, so we can't run them with Guile. One of our goals is to avoid requiring people to use emacs -- for those who don't use it as their editor, it seems silly to download and install emacs just to get indentation. > >>> Rietveld doesn't prevent multiple patches per issue. Our policy of >>> testing each commit to ensure that it doesn't break build prevents >>> multiple patches per issue. >> >> I thought that rietveld automatically squashed all patches into a >> single large diff -- which I agree isn't precisely the same as >> "preventing" multiple patches, but it doesn't precisely "support" >> them either. :) > >You can just upload them as a sequence. But that's really not the same >as different revisions. We don't have to (and IMO shouldn't) use downloaded patches from Rietveld for pushing, because they lose all author information. But we should insist on one commit per Rietveld issue (or per reviewed chunk), unless we have some other method of verifying that the build is not broken by intermediate commits. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
