On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:06:00PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > I agree. Given your limited computing power, you are the very > > last person who should be running Patchy. > > It is not just my computing resources that make me unsuitable.
I was tactfully not mentioning the other part. :) > you'll see that I am also damaging the project by alienating new > contributors. Actually, we _should_ be alienating new contributors. At least, new programming contributors. Anything else is dishonest and unfair to them. (we still need more admin people, though, in order to smooth out the process of programming such that we can eventually be fair to new programmers) > So in order to stop damaging the project, I will stop doing any reviews > except on patches of myself: I am getting paid for work on LilyPond, and > it would not be conscionable for me to forego those parts of general > work required to let my own work go forward. Please keep on reviewing -- at least, review to the extent of "you haven't fixed everything." or "problems in x, y, and z". I'm not asking you to give any details, I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, and I'm certainly not asking you to be nice to patch submitters. But we really need to stop questionable patches getting into lilypond -- you know this even better than I. > > PS if you want to run Patchy on your own patches, then by all > > means do so. But please refuse to check other people's patches, > > no matter how urgent the bug or how much the contributor pleads > > for reviews. > > I see you are thinking ahead of me again. It's my job to think ahead of people. I told Janek in January that he should not try to recruit anybody unless he was going to take care of them, because it would end badly. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel