On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:53:13PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote: > > I can't > > see why locating and implementing a code management system which handles the > > process as well as centralising the discussion, is a Bad Thing. > > I don't suppose that he meant it's a bad thing. I think Graham's > concern is that we've not moved forward. In order to choose a better > tool, someone must investigate the alternatives and describe pros and > cons of each of them - then we can actually do something.
Yes. In business terminology, treat lilypond-devel like a board of governers. Sometimes discussion moves into brainstorming for a bit, but at some point it turns into a waste of time. I want a sub-committee to investigate these tools, write a report, and bring it back. Then we will discuss the report -- we're not just going to immediately accept the recommendation; I want reasons behind the recommendations so that we can discuss them in more detail. That's what I've tried to do with all the other proposals, with varying degrees of success. At the moment, I'm assuming that the sub-committee will be myself. I don't have the time to do this right now, so consider it shelved until... oh, late October or so...? If other people want to form a subcomittee seriously investigating other tools, great! If that subcommittee identifies a general policy question that needs to be settled before they can continue their work, then by all means bring a proposal back to lilypond-devel to debate and decide on that specific point. Again, I could probably find a few general policy points from that discussion and get them clarified, but I don't have the time. If somebody else wants to do this, great. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
