On 26/09/13 18:38, David Kastrup wrote:
You commented on the issue where this patch originated as late as July: <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1278#c7>. So it's hard to argue that it was not discoverable to you.
This July I got an email update from the issue, and responded.
The creation of the issue tracker was pointed out to you in a direct reply by Valentin in <URL:http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2010-09/msg00424.html>.
I was never unaware of the _issue_, it's the code review that I was not involved in (and did not receive email updates from).
Most likely it's because the issue update with the link to the code review arrived on 30 December 2010, with subsequent updates going up to February 21, which was a period when I was completely snowed under with work issues. By the time I caught up with progress, the code review was long over and the patch had been abandoned.
The discussion thread containing this pointer consists of four mails. Three of those mails were written by yourself, only the final reply with the pointer to the tracker issue was written by Valentin. I doubt that using a different tool would have changed your perception of never having been invited to take part in that review.
There is a difference between getting auto updates on an issue and getting an invitation to participate or give feedback. When I've submitted code to a project that attempts to resolve a user's issue, I've usually written to them directly asking for their input and involvement.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
