On 26/09/13 12:26, David Kastrup wrote:
The dean is annoyed: "Why can't you be like the mathematicians? They just need pencils, paper, and a wastebasket and will work for years. And the philosophers don't even need a wastebasket..."
Not any more, either for mathematicians or philosophers ... :-)
You can't make decisions without evaluating things, and evaluating things does not even mean that the work will lead to a change from the current state of affairs. It may make you realize that minor changes will already address some problems, for example.
Quite, but one of the problems we have right now is that it's not clear what the broad requirements are. For example -- we know that GitHub is out because of its proprietary nature. That means that no one is going to waste time setting up a trial system using GitHub. There are surely other things that can be clarified now so as to not evaluate systems that are going to be rejected out of hand.
For example -- is it essential that any solution proposed work well with Google Code issues? Or will consideration be given to a solution that involves an alternative issue tracker?
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
