Colin Campbell <c...@shaw.ca> writes: > On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Thanks. Note that this does _not_ mean regtests and doc builds: we have >> automatisms for that. It means running your own files that use this >> feature, and reading the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new >> incarnation of the feature make sense to you. >> >> Opinions are more important than results here, and results are only >> important as _experiences_, namely connected with your own, individual >> work. >> >> Don't bother doing the job of the computer. We need that of the human. >> >> Thanks > > As an interjection from a semi-human part of the process: I ordinarily > put patches on countdown rather aggressively, with the inent of > keeping them flowing through the system. I could easily restrict > countdowns to those patches which have an explicit LGTM from a senior > developer. Another approach might be to ask developers to flag their > especially critical patches with a "needs LGTM". I'm afraid both > would slow the patch clearing process, but either should give the sort > of explicit review David is seeking.
Either way we have too little developer time to go round. I still decided to belabor Werner on this issue because he basically outed himself as a user and fan of the feature, and I had little else to work with here. Like with the discussion groups: if we don't find a way to have a working trickle-down started for reviews, developers will get congested and exhausted eventually, physically (including their time budget) as well as mentally. It is good that we get into a shape where we need the humans mostly to do the job of humans only. But we can't replace that. And so we'll need more humans. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
