Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2783 in lilypond: wrong placement of timesignature

[lilypond]

Comment #17 on issue 2783 by address@hidden: wrong placement of timesignature
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2783

While it will not make a difference with regard to Rietveld's single-diff  
review, when replacing a complex behavior with a simpler one, it might make  
sense to structure the commits into revert + additional change(s).  That  
way the changes are easier to look at on their own.  Particularly if it  
turns out that they cause new problems.

Yes, most of this discussion should have happened before.  Attendance in  
reviews continues to be embarrassingly weak.  It would probably already  
help a lot with code quality if some secret autobot posted "I don't  
understand what this is supposed to do" for every 10 lines of code without  
comment, and more people got drawn into the resulting fights.

With regard to the original time signature patch, I did express some  
bewilderment when reviewing the changes.  I did not, however, seriously  
involve myself with the rationale of its design, and nobody else bothered  
either.

This is not optimal for our code quality, and it is also not optimal for  
the work atmosphere as it causes tensions when unnecessary work is done,  
and tensions when people start complaining violently about intended  
consequences of work that had been easily accessible in the review stage.

I'll try to figure out when the "even line-count" scenario got  
special-cased so that we can better estimate of how much sense it makes to  
retain that.  Comment #11 would suggest that Ross provides some incentive  
to change to position 0, but of course it will cause a one-time  
inconvenience to everybody already relying on (or having compensated  
already) existing behavior.  So we better make sure that if we are going  
for something else, we have solid reason not to change again later.

Thanks for bearing with our somewhat bumpy processes.