On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Did you run the regression test? > > - I just did (make check?), it fails (I guess, I'm not sure what to > look for).
This is absolutely critical for any large-scale code change. >> If we are doing a fixup of this, we should try to do all files at the > > same time, or at least a section of files. > - I will gladly do that, even if it takes a lot of time, but we should > clarify a few things first, as my developing RSI doesn't permit me to do > things that will simply be rejected (I do have some time now, however). > Should I write a basic coding guideline, based on the source code (and > the provided links), that you guys can modify so that everything > important is clarified (eg. spreadsheets.google.com)? A huge poll could > follow it, with the alternatives that were presented there. Read the Contributor's Guide, and all the emails linked from: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=746 I'm not certain if you want to spend 20+ hours working on the code style. My recommendation is to work on non-contentious issues, like fixing compiler warnings such as casting from signed to unsigned. >> I agree with this in some cases but not in all, which is also why I > > want to see more targeted commits, so we discuss specific cases. > - Would it be possible, to discuss it first? I don't like to work in > vain. That's why it's vital to submit small patches, covering separate matters -- yes, this makes it easier for us to discuss, but it also protects you from doing a lot of work that later gets rejected. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
