Re: What's with the test-patches volunteers?

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:06:00PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I agree.  Given your limited computing power, you are the very
> > last person who should be running Patchy.
> 
> It is not just my computing resources that make me unsuitable.

I was tactfully not mentioning the other part.  :)

> you'll see that I am also damaging the project by alienating new
> contributors.

Actually, we _should_ be alienating new contributors.  At least,
new programming contributors.  Anything else is dishonest and
unfair to them.
(we still need more admin people, though, in order to smooth out
the process of programming such that we can eventually be fair to
new programmers)


> So in order to stop damaging the project, I will stop doing any reviews
> except on patches of myself: I am getting paid for work on LilyPond, and
> it would not be conscionable for me to forego those parts of general
> work required to let my own work go forward.

Please keep on reviewing -- at least, review to the extent of "you
haven't fixed everything." or "problems in x, y, and z".  I'm not
asking you to give any details, I'm not asking you to repeat
yourself, and I'm certainly not asking you to be nice to patch
submitters.  But we really need to stop questionable patches
getting into lilypond -- you know this even better than I.

> > PS if you want to run Patchy on your own patches, then by all
> > means do so.  But please refuse to check other people's patches,
> > no matter how urgent the bug or how much the contributor pleads
> > for reviews.
> 
> I see you are thinking ahead of me again.

It's my job to think ahead of people.  I told Janek in January
that he should not try to recruit anybody unless he was going to
take care of them, because it would end badly.

- Graham