Re: Outstanding patches

[Joe Neeman]

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 04:09 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote: 
> 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.

That would be nice. It may be worth explaining to your employer (if you
haven't already) that by doing patches the "proper" way, they will be
able to use features that are developed in mainline lilypond in addition
to the ones you develop. 

> 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

This was applied (a7d058d67feb06da25298c3df77e0740f8069d62)

> "Pure-height of stems", sits wanting a test case:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18449/focus=18450

This was applied too (b86b58161aa6a9ecee5ebca1ad4e7ca66e0027f8)

Not that regression tests aren't important, but I guess whoever pushed
the fix decided that it was more important to get the bug fixes in
there.

Cheers,
Joe