On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:13:20AM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote: > "Graham Percival" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:20110303100109.GA13658@futoi... > > > >Perhaps we should just say that the Bug Squad should ignore any > >"issue to verify" that is tagged with "Patch" ? we can find > >somebody else that can check if a patch was actually pushed. > > TBH I think that's ducking the issue. Taking 1535 as an example, it > was called "Adding the Tweak_engraver to the Dynamics context". If > it had been called "Making tweaks work in a Dynamics context" it > would have been easier to guess what it was intended to do. If it > had included the code you added, it would have taken a moment to > test and verify. I think we should work to a standard of easily > comprehensible patches with sample code - if we do, any bug squad > member would be able to test and verify quickly and we'll have a > nice clean list of issues to verify.
In most part, I disagree. Patches are something that developers look at. The subject "adding the tweak_engraver to the dynamics context" makes perfect sense to developers. In fact, if we changed the subject, I could well imagine a developer complaining that it made less sense! Now, sample code may be useful for developer to communicate with each other -- I'm not going to say that sample code is a bad thing! But I don't think we should try to force developers to always write sample code. Ditto for "easily comprehensible patches" -- of course it's good to have easy-to-understand patches. But such patches should be judged by the standards of developers, not users. And if a patch isn't easy to understand by developers, it should be discussed on the -devel list. In short, I don't see any benefit from trying to make bug squad members deal with patches, or trying to make patches deal with bug squad members. I think the result would greatly slow down and frustrate the jobs of both developers and bug squad members. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
