Re: development process

Hi all, I fully agree with Han-Wen. I also could now and then (maybe once a week) set aside 2-3 hours work for lily. But the current development process really makes it hard for me to keep up submitting a patch (as part of currently 11 commits (mostly small to medium ones),

Re: development process

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM David Kastrup wrote: > >> Where commits do not belong to the same logical issue but are still >> interdependent, they cannot be logically disentangled even using a >> Git-specific tool like Gerrit. >> > > Oh, but you can. You can review

Re: Grow heap aggressively during music interpretation (issue 561390043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/04 22:23:45, hanwenn wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM wrote: > > > On 2020/02/02 22:33:50, hanwenn wrote: > > > For testing, use > > > > > > https://github.com/hanwen/lilypond/tree/guile22-experiment > > > > So I ran this with the large example

Re: development process

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:23 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > >> I don't see why we need to have a final list of detailed points that we >> all agree upon before sketching a process. > > > I think it's a more systematic way of approaching the problem. The reason > I'm doing

Re: development process

Am Mi., 5. Feb. 2020 um 00:12 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup : > > Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > >The review process leaves changes in an unclear state. If Werner says > >LGTM, but then Dan and David have complaints, do I have to address the > >comments, or is change already OK to go in?

Re: development process

Jonas Hahnfeld writes: > That's not really my point, I agree that we should improve the process. > I think everybody has a list of wishes such as yours, the major points > from mine would be: > * have less tools to work with (currently SF, Rietveld, Savannah) > * use tools that agree on a

Code of Conduct

A couple of people (me, Janek, Werner), want to add a CoC to the LilyPond project, and there were some questions about why we would want to do that: There is a definite advantage to having a community with gentle interactions and without flames and personal attacks. It makes being part of the

Re: development process

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:23 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > I don't see why we need to have a final list of detailed points that we > all agree upon before sketching a process. I think it's a more systematic way of approaching the problem. The reason I'm doing it this way, is because I have a

Re: development process

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Where commits do not belong to the same logical issue but are still > interdependent, they cannot be logically disentangled even using a > Git-specific tool like Gerrit. > Oh, but you can. You can review the change as part of the dependent

Re: development process

Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 09:50 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > >> We don't need to rehash that the current system sucks. > > > > This would also be my comment on the initial message: It's again saying > > how bad the current process is. It would be far more constructive to > > make a

Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 18:34 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup : > > "Phil Holmes" writes: > > > - Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" > >> Wow. Ok, maybe I'll just apply this patch then (though I'll at > >> least > >> remove the conditioning on Apple here as the problem is rather likely

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/05 08:44:06, janek wrote: > Hi Jonas, > > śr., 5 lut 2020 o 09:18 napisał(a): > > > Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed > > on lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on > > GitHub is fine,

Re: development process

>> We don't need to rehash that the current system sucks. > > This would also be my comment on the initial message: It's again saying > how bad the current process is. It would be far more constructive to > make a concrete proposal about how to do it instead. I want us to come to consensus what

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

Hi Jonas, śr., 5 lut 2020 o 09:18 napisał(a): > Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed > on lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on > GitHub is fine, but I for one wasn't aware that there is one! > Thank you for being open. I

Re: development process

Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 00:11 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Han-Wen Nienhuys < > hanw...@gmail.com > > writes: > > > My experiences with the current Lilypond development process. > > > > For context, I have a busy daytime job. I work 80% so I can set aside > > a couple of hours of

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for February 4th

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:14 AM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 04.02.2020, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > Somehow > > https://codereview.appspot.com/577410045/ > > got lost in the process. > > OK to push? > > This was part of

Re: Clean up embedded scheme parsing/evaluation. (issue 577410045 by hanw...@gmail.com)

https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5737/ https://codereview.appspot.com/577410045/

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed on lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on GitHub is fine, but I for one wasn't aware that there is one! https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

Hi, śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik napisał: > What problem are we trying to solve here? > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from newcomers. Also, it's simply good to have a lightweight

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for February 4th

Am Dienstag, den 04.02.2020, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > Somehow > https://codereview.appspot.com/577410045/ > got lost in the process. > OK to push? This was part of https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5699/. I asked you to open separate issues for each review. That

<    1   2