Am Sonntag, 6. Februar 2011, um 23:58:20 schrieb Graham Percival: > There's five questions in my mind. > > 1) should we reject a patch which does not have complete > documention? (IMNSHO: no)
I would word it differently: We encourage (although not absolutely require) each developer to write basic documentation for a new feature. > 3) once a code patch has been accepted, should we reject any doc > patch written by the programmer? (no, of course not! If a > programmers *wants* to write docs, then of course that's great! Okay, then expect some patches for my new features in the 2.13 release. > 4) once a code patch has been accepted, should we immediately add > a doc-issue to the tracker for missing docs? (this one is > arguable; at the moment I don't see the point of doing this, but > if somebody is very excited about some particular piece of missing > docs and enjoys playing with the google tracker, I'm not going to > stop them) I would prefer a new issue so that no new features are missed. Cheers, Reinhold -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, [email protected], http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
