On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Graham Percival <[email protected]> wrote: > Once bitten, twice shy. I would have been happier if the patch had > been up for review for at least 24 hours, to give developer in all > time zones a chance to comment.
I've sent not one, but *three* patches for "review" successively. If by "review" you mean "Rietveld", then no, there's no way in hell I'll upload a patch that affects more than 100 files. That's why I didn't upload the very first patch in the first place. > I've asked Carl and Mark to delay pushing patches for that reason -- > even when the patch had already gone through 5 revisions! If there is > a hint of contention, then it seems to me that 24 hours is not a long > time to wait. As Trevor said, it was more about reverting things than anything else. Carl: I do get your point, and you're right that @file entries that contain a @var or something like that shouldn't necessarily be treated as "long" entries. Please don't think your objection was disregarded at all; I promise I'll have a thorough look once the new docs are online, and adjust things (I mean, submit patches :) if needed. Cheers, Valentin. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
