Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(36)

Issue 6454140: Fix Issue 2366 "THANKS needs updating or deleting" (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 8 months ago by John Mandereau
Modified:
11 years, 8 months ago
Reviewers:
Graham Percival, dak
CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org
Base URL:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Fix Issue 2366 "THANKS needs updating or deleting"

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : Remove remaining references to THANKS at toplevel #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+25 lines, -10 lines) Patch
M Documentation/GNUmakefile View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M Documentation/hu/web/basic-authors.itexi View 1 2 chunks +6 lines, -4 lines 0 comments Download
M Documentation/included/authors.itexi View 1 1 chunk +5 lines, -3 lines 0 comments Download
M Documentation/misc/GNUmakefile View 1 chunk +5 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
A + Documentation/misc/THANKS-2.14 View 0 chunks +-1 lines, --1 lines 0 comments Download
M Documentation/web/community.itexi View 1 chunk +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M GNUmakefile.in View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M python/auxiliar/postprocess_html.py View 1 1 chunk +0 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3
Graham Percival
LGTM
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-13 08:52:43 UTC) #1
dak
You have taken the path of removing THANKS altogether if I understand correctly. I am ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-13 09:32:10 UTC) #2
John Mandereau
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-13 21:21:11 UTC) #3
On 2012/08/13 09:32:10, dak wrote:
> You have taken the path of removing THANKS altogether if I understand
correctly.

Yes, as I was away from development during late 2.13 and almost all of 2.15
series, I'm not the best person to update THANKS in case we decided to (I could
only do "git shortlog -s" and grep for "thank" in "git log"), and nobody in
position to do it took the effort to update it, so IMHO this is the route to
take.  Otherwise, if we we decide to keep THANKS, then I'll tag the issue
Needs-policy and let's update THANKS at the meeting in Waltrop if nobody has
done it before.


> I am not sure whether we should not replace it by the edited output of
> git shortlog -s release/2.14.2-1..release/2.15.95-1
> instead, manually.  That would cause the least disruption to the code.

Doing so would boil down to updating THANKS as it used to be done, minus a few
entries in Suggestions (see my feeling about keeping THANKS above in this
message).  I think that in this situation "disruption to the code" or the build
system is a wrong motivation to use.

> At any rate, regarding your approach: Documentation/included/authors.itexi
still
> refers to THANKS.  Somewhat surprisingly, so does
> Documentation/hu/web/basic-authors.itexi.
> 
> Also check python/auxiliar/postprocess_html.py.

Oh right, the new patch should address this.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b