On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:33 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > 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.
true and i don't mean to complain. I just wish i had more time. > 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. Doesn't work well in my case. Until the issue is closed, it's hard for me to forget about it. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
