----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net>
To: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>; "Janek Warchoł"
<janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>; "LilyPond Development Team"
<lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: improving our contributing tools and workflow
On 26/09/13 12:26, David Kastrup wrote:
The dean is annoyed: "Why can't you be like the mathematicians? They
just need pencils, paper, and a wastebasket and will work for years.
And the philosophers don't even need a wastebasket..."
Not any more, either for mathematicians or philosophers ... :-)
You can't make decisions without evaluating things, and evaluating
things does not even mean that the work will lead to a change from the
current state of affairs. It may make you realize that minor changes
will already address some problems, for example.
Quite, but one of the problems we have right now is that it's not clear
what the broad requirements are. For example -- we know that GitHub is
out because of its proprietary nature. That means that no one is going to
waste time setting up a trial system using GitHub. There are surely other
things that can be clarified now so as to not evaluate systems that are
going to be rejected out of hand.
For example -- is it essential that any solution proposed work well with
Google Code issues? Or will consideration be given to a solution that
involves an alternative issue tracker?
As far as I'm concerned, Google Code could be changed. I find its
restriction on attachments annoying. However, a replacement would have to
be able to import _all_ the issues lodged there with all their detail and
attachments, and provide similar facilities. If it made other stuff easier,
great.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel