On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > I think that any time that a LilyPond developer complains that > the code is too hard to understand, the patch should automatically > move to Patch-needs_work. Automatically. > If there's a long discussion and there's overwhelming opinion from > other developers that the code is fine, then we could ignore the > dissenting developer. But unless there's *overwhelming* opinion > that the patch is fine, I think that a single complaint of > readability should render the patch un-pushable.
+1. Hmm, adopting this policy would make me the most feared reviewer in the community :-P On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > "m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes: >> I don't mind going through the code, file by file, and writing >> comments everywhere. I understand most of it and if you think that'd >> lead to better maintainability then it is worth it. I'll try to do >> 3-4 files a week. > > I think more of 6 people doing one randomly assigned file a month. It > is ok if they feel they want to do more, but this will already cause > quite a load of private mail on the original authors. Count me in for ~100 lines of c++ a month. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
