On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 10:20:41AM +0000, James Lowe wrote:
________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Colin Campbell address@hidden
I don't think we need a tracker for this particular patch; I think
Reinhold should push it whenever he thinks it's ready, since this isn't
going to disrupt anything else.
I'd suggest we *do* create a tracker item, even if Reinhold pushes
immediately, so that we can work toward one source "of record" for all
changes and enhancements.
By decree, we will seriously discuss this proposal at a later date
as part of GOP. Until we have a full discussion of the proposal,
we will not adopt any change of existing policy.
As it is, there are a an unknown number of
things added or done to lilypond, leaving no trace except in git blame
or its relatives.
I don't think this is a horrible thing -- the git changelog is a
perfectly reliable source of information. It's searchable in the
webgit interface, or browsable within gitk, etc. The open-source
community has a long history of looking at cvs/svn/mercurial/git
changelogs.
Yes I agree*
James, do you really think that it would have been worth adding a
google tracker issue for
12503a0c383617cd11fa0bba2836af6c0518ecf7
? I think that some sort of balance is called for; some patches
definitely need the extra administation of having an issue number,
most would benefit from it, but some patches can be pushed
immediately with no fuss.
Don't get me wrong; it's great that you and Colin are adding issue
numbers, and I certainly don't want to discourage you! And of
course it's good if patch-writers let us know if this is fixing an
existing issue.
I just think that:
1. we shouldn't institute a blanket policy of "always issue
numbers" until we've discussed it properly.
2. when that discussion occurs, I will be arguing against such a
policy; instead, I will suggest that we have a "always issue
numbers by default, unless it's not important enough to bother
with one" policy.
Cheers,
- Graham