Re: Patch:Doc-enhancement identifiers

[Urs Liska]

Am 21.06.2013 12:24, schrieb James:
> Urs,
>
>
> On 21 June 2013 09:40, Urs Liska <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     Am 18.06.2013 21:23, schrieb James:
>
>         On 18/06/13 19:47, Urs Liska wrote:
>
>             Am 15.06.2013 10:10, schrieb Urs Liska:
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 as discussed here:
>                 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-06/msg00342.html
>                 The definition of identifier names in
>                 
> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/file-structure.html
>                 is slightly misleading.
>                 I think applying the attached patch would make it clearer.
>
>                 Best
>                 Urs
>
>             Nobody bothering accepting or at lest commenting a free
>             patch contribution?
>             _______________________________________________
>             bug-lilypond mailing list
>             address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>             https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>
>         What's the google tracker number?
>
>         I don't recall testing this patch.
>
>         Did it just get thrown onto the list or did they follow the
>         process for submitting patches?
>
>
>     I don't know if that comment is meant pejorative, but:
>     This was a bug report with a suggestion for a solution in the form
>     of an attached patch.
>     So it presumably matches your description of "just get thrown on
>     the list".
>
>     Urs
>
>
> It wasn't meant pejoratively at all - I find sarcasm (gentle or 
> otherwise) really doesn't travel well (across nationalities/cultures - 
> too much misinterpretation) so I am being straight.
>
> Generally a patch won't get reviewed until it has been tested against 
> current master, it won't get tested until it has a tracker linking to 
> a reitveld issue. The testing I do is scripted.
>
> So you can create a tracker manually if you like (and don't want to 
> use the git-cl tools we provide see; 
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers 
> (reviews)) then add the rietveld link so the scripts can download the 
> patch to test and then it is in the system (so to speak).

Do I understand correctly that using git-cl doesn't require push access 
to the git repository? That's a way to get patches in the code base 
without asking for push access?
Then I'll examine it closer.

Thanks for the clarification.
Urs

> if you just say 'here's a patch' and send it to dev, it may or may not 
> get looked at - depending who has the time to take your patch, apply 
> it to their own tree and test it doesn't break anything.
>
> If the person submitting the patch follows the standard process then 
> it definitely will get reviewed.
>
> James