On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:32:16PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Indeed. Perhaps we could make a clearer distinction > between patches that must be reviewed, like those > which cause syntax changes, those which add new > features and those by relative newcomers, and those > that should simply be pushed without review, like > bug fixes by experienced developers, minor doc changes, > etc, with the aim of reducing further the number going to Reitveld > and lengthening the queue.
We're already seeing developers avoiding the queue by pushing directly. I'm happy with the amount of that we're seeing, and we could see a bit more -- but only if those developers really test their stuff before pushing it directly. Rather, I'd like to have a clearer format for the countdowns. I'm thinking of something like this: SYNTAX CHANGES issue 1234 blah MAINTAINABILITY issue 2345 foo issue 3456 bar LARGE PATCHES issue 4567 baz issue 5678 SHORT PATCHES issue 6789 doc blah issue 7890 issue 8901 issue 9012 issue 0123 the trick is coming up with the right granuality of sections; I think that 3 or 4 sections is good. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
