On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:32:01AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:09 AM > > >Using lily-git.tcl and being able to fix it are completely > >different things. IIRC the only people who have worked on > >lily-git.tcl are the original author of it, Carl, and me -- none > >of these people actually use lily-git.tcl. > > I don't believe either you or Carl needs any coercion to fix > lily-git.tc.
Think of a release as more of a "stamp of approval" and less of "coercion". > >Besides, lily-git.tcl is only a small fraction of the things which > >may stop a contributor from helping out. If savannah is down, > >then nobody can push (or pull) anything. > > Neither can a release be made anyway. Technically I could still make a release using a local git repo. > Don't get me wrong. Whether we place these issues in a > critical category or not is hardly a vital decision, but here > we're talking about deciding Policy. Policy decisions > must be based on sound and justifiable arguments, not > opinion or expediency. So my concern is that we are not > following a sufficiently sound approach here. Completely agreed! I've taken a stab at this with the "stamp of approval" concept of a release -- please take a look at the updated GOP-PROP 8...(probable decision) and let me know what you think. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
