2013/10/27 David Kastrup <[email protected]>: > Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: >> So, would it be possible to get issue 3239 reviewed? It's waiting for >> half a year, and solving merge conflicts when i rebase it gets >> irritating. > > I don't tell people what they are supposed to review.
Oh, really? ;-P You can tell whether you would review it, and others can tell whether they would review it. That's what i'd like to know. >> It's a rewrite of Self_alignment_interface, making it easier to align >> grobs in various ways. I think that it's self-contained, shouldn't >> introduce regressions (as it doesn't change the logic of calculating >> alignment) and it can be written in a way that doesn't require >> convert-ly. > > From what I remember from the time we tested it, it changed enough > things invasively enough (and "shouldn't introduce regressions" was not > quite convincing) that it does not make sense committing it now. I can rework it to be less invasive *if* doing so will mean that it will get reviewed (at least by one person; i'm not asking you to speak for others). > You say yourself that it gives you a sizeable number of merge conflicts, Well, maybe i exaggerated in my previous email. The conflicts were trivial, and they were not *that* frequent - maybe 1 per month. For me things get irritating when a merge conflict appears more than twice. >> If so, i'd first review it myself, but if it won't get reviewed for >> another 3 months, there'd be no point in me wasting time for working >> on it. > > It's pretty safe to say that I would not be happy if it were _committed_ > in the next month. After that, it gets more fuzzy. With regard to > reviews, the same rules about keeping master as rebaseable as possible > for a while also apply to other contributions, so if you rebase now, > chances are that not much of a further rebase will be needed by the time > including it makes sense. That's good, but the most irritating thing about this patch is not that i have to solve merge conflicts. I'm mainly irritated because a piece of solid code (maybe it's not as solid as i think, but to know that i need _reviews_) is laying dormant for *half a year*, which prohibits me from working on some other stuff. I would really like to get some of my GSoC work finished and merged into master, and this patch is a first step for that. Also, note that this patch is not some fancy new feature - it replaces current weird code with new, more straightforward code (as far as i can tell). And fixes an actual bug. Anyway, if your opinion is that it's not suitable for being discussed, i will wait. But it's not like i'm happy about it. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
