Re: Use a pointer for the output parameter of Lily_lexer::scan_word (issue 577440044 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

On 01/02/2020 21:18, address@hidden wrote:
> On 2020/02/01 20:55:22, Dan Eble wrote:
> > On 2020/02/01 20:10:15, hanwenn wrote:
> > > Can I ask that we don't do this on a code review, but in a separate
> thread?
> > Why?  The review is where the patch meister (James) looks when he
> decides
> > whether to advance the patch through the countdown.  If there were no
> activity
> > here, he might advance the patch to push, not recognizing that it is
> > controversial.
> I marked it DO NOT SUBMIT.
>
> We should discuss it separately, because likely the discussion will
> touch on an wider
> issue of C++ style and future plans for the code base, and doesn't
> pertain to this small
> change of the code.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/577440044/
What I find helps is the 'waiting' status.

This is often used for those patches that are waiting on 'other' patches 
to be pushed, or where - such as this seems to be - cases where the 
patch itself is not bad but that it is likely to have a lot of discussion.

Any dev can change any status but I am getting the impression Hanwenn 
that you have little time for the tracker than the code review - or at 
least that is what it seems to me, or maybe you don't see it as 
significant as the tracker (because it has no code 'in it so to speak). 
To me the tracker is king, I don't care where a discussion is - have it 
outside the tracker in emails for all I care, and while it is true that 
I may move the patch to push without  realising it, I don't do the 
pushing and ANY dev can either shout in the tracker 'No' or they can 
change a tracker's status themselves - although it is bad form to down 
grade another Dev's tracker, we've not had any nasty/bitter arguments 
that I can tell.


James