[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Outstanding patches
From: |
Boris Shingarov |
Subject: |
Re: Outstanding patches |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:09:00 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
Hi Joe,
Could you send me a list of the unreviewed patches that you have on
rietveld? I should have time in the next week or so to review them.
This issue is not so much the patches being "unreviewed" but rather
"sitting stuck missing an ingredient like a test case". And this is
partly a practical and partly a philosophical issue for us here: as I am
trying very hard to explain (in the presentation and many posts on the
lists), *my* focus is not advancing LilyPond along its main direction
(there already is an excellent team doing that), but taking it to other,
orthogonal, dimensions -- such as making it useful to a musicologist
preparing a major critical edition. In this work, we have our own
limitations which make it very difficult to do proper disciplined
software development. Right now, when presented with a technical
requirement, I have to take the shortest path to satisfy the requirement
*for this book only*. I have very limited time to care if the solution
breaks all other books. Not that I have a low code standard, but many
times I have to consciously go against my own standards. This exercise
going against developer values is deliberate. It has to do with being
customer-centric vs software-centric.
If the solution happens to be close enough to being useful for everybody
else (this is what I earlier called "10% extra work to get the patch
accepted"), I submit the patch for review. But sometimes, "the shortest
way" differs from the "proper" say by 500%; these are the patches I
classify within the "future work" category.
This is going to change. Hopefully, with the success of the work on the
first volume of the book, will be able to launch a project supporting
proper mainline LilyPond development.
Now, on to the actual list. Off the top of my head, there are three.
"Page-spacer gets confused", sits wanting a test case:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/17443/focus=18865
This issue has a duplicate, "Vertical spacing: over-estimation of
markups height", recently reported by Nicolas:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18831/focus=18857
"Pure-height of stems", sits wanting a test case:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18449/focus=18450
Homogeneous treatment of markup and markup-list things, discussed back
in February and again recently:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-02/msg00268.html
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/28717/focus=28813
http://codereview.appspot.com/207105
With this one, the situations is somewhat more complex because I can see
the reasons for Nicolas' assessment that the patch makes one markup
command behave differently from all other markup commands. I am not yet
sure if this is ok or bad. The whole idea of the patch is that a markup
command can return either a stencil or a list of stencils, and the code
consuming the result, automatically decides on how to deal with what
came from the command. If we take this standpoint, then the patch only
needs those minor formatting fixes that Carl pointed out. But one could
also take Nicolas' standpoint.
- Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa, Boris Shingarov, 2010/06/13
- Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa, Carl Sorensen, 2010/06/13
- Outstanding patches, Joe Neeman, 2010/06/13
- Re: Outstanding patches,
Boris Shingarov <=
- Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa, Graham Percival, 2010/06/15
- Re: Presentation: "Publisher-grade LilyPond" in Ottawa, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2010/06/15
- bounties, Graham Percival, 2010/06/15
- Re: bounties, Joseph Wakeling, 2010/06/18
- Re: bounties, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/06/18
- Re: bounties, Valentin Villenave, 2010/06/19
- Re: bounties, Joseph Wakeling, 2010/06/20
- Re: bounties, David Kastrup, 2010/06/20
- Re: bounties, Graham Percival, 2010/06/20