Re: the latest convert-ly fiasco

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:02:48AM -0600, Colin Campbell wrote:
>> In the interests of 'get it done and make the paper work agree',
>> would you and Graham let me know which issues/patches are going
>> through slightly different channels?
>
> To be honest, I have no clue.
>
>> I gather that most or all of this would be Rietveld only, so
>> it's essentially invisible to the policy weeny, but if I can
>> stay out of the way, I'd be glad to turn the blind eye.
>
> I think the essential bit is the same.
> - when it's time for a countdown,
>   1. pick a bunch of patches with Patch-review.
>   2. announce them
> - when the countdown is done, look at any patches with
>   Patch-countdown, and then either:
>   3. if there are complaints, change it to patch-needs_work
>   4. otherwise, change it to patch-push
>
> If a patch jumps from patch-new to fixed, or from patch-review to
> fixed, or whatever, that shouldn't change anything as far as
> you're concerned.  When making the countdown you only care about
> "patch-review" items; when finishing the countdown you only care
> about "patch-countdown" items.

Yup.

Uh, Graham?  I think we need a version number bump.  I can create and
apply conversion rules nevertheless (convert-ly is not bothered about
the versions of the Lilypond executable), but I think when the version
numbers in the regtests overtake the executable, the executable might
get annoyed.

Regardless of how eager I am breaking the rules, I don't think I should
check the next syntax-changing patch before that.

-- 
David Kastrup