Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:39:11PM +0000, James wrote: >>> I think this needs to be reviewed just like any other patch should be, >>> why *would* we just push this? >> >> Well, I think this one is simple enough to push directly. > > Shall i do this? > And shall i not ask next time? ;) > >>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commitdiff;h=d11dbf277719c0179c5520154c925839d969a535 >>> >>> I might have missed this but did this have a tracker/patchy test? >> >> I think that was also simple enough not to need an individual >> patchy test. As long as it was pushed to staging and not master, >> stuff that simple is fine. > > That was also my reasoning. It's unbelievable how much time is spend > on patch maintenance... A simple change can take 5 days (in my case > it means 5 days of constant awareness about the patch)...
The alternatives have shown a tendency to lock up development for everyone. Not everything goes through the full cycle, but it's not rare that even "trivial" things get valid comments and corrections. No "constant awareness" is required. Patches move from Patch-new to Patch-review to Patch-countdown to Patch-push without the patch originator being required to bother about it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
