+@node Summary for experienced developers
+@section Summary for experienced developers
+
+If you are already familiar with typical open-source tools, here's
+what you need to know:
+
+@itemize
+@item @strong{source repository}:
+hosted by GNU savannah.
+
+@example
+@uref{http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git}
+@end example
+
+@item @strong{environment variables}:
+many maintenance scripts, and many instructions in this guide rely on
+predefined @ref{Environment variables}.
+
+@item @strong{mailing lists}:
+given on @rweb{Contact}.
+
+@item @strong{branches}:
+
+@itemize
+@item @code{master}:
+base your work from this, but do @strong{not push} to it.
+
+@item @code{staging}:
+after a successful review (see below), push here.
+
+@item @code{translation}:
+translators should base their work from this, and also push to it.
+
+@item @code{dev/foo}:
+feel free to push any new branch name under @code{dev/}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@item @strong{regression tests}:
+also known as @qq{regtests}; this is a collection of more than a
+thousand .ly files. We track the output of those files between
+versions.
+
+If a patch introduces any unintentional changes to the regtests,
+we will likely reject it -- make sure that you are aware and can
+explain any regtest changes. More info in @ref{Regression tests}.
+
+@item @strong{reviews}:
+after finishing work on a patch or branch:
+
+@enumerate
+@item
+upload it with our custom @code{git-cl} @q{helper-script}; see
+@ref{git-cl}. In addition to uploading patches to the Google's Rietveld
+Code Review Tool the script will also update the issue tracker (or add a
+new issue as appropriate) so that we don't lose reference to your
+patch. The @qq{status} of your patch is kept on the issue tracker;
+see @ref{Issues}.
+
+Your patch will be given @code{Patch-new} status. More information on
+this can be found in the section @ref{Uploading a patch for review}.
+
+@item
+If your patch passes some automatic tests, it will be given
+@code{Patch-review} status. This generally happens within 24
+hours.
+
+@item
+After that, the patch must wait for the next @qq{patch countdown},
+which occurs roughly every 3 days. When your patch is put on a
+countdown, it will be given @code{Patch-countdown} status.
+
+@item
+The countdown is a 72-hour period which gives other developers one
+last chance to review the patch. If no significant problems are
+found, your patch will be given @code{Patch-push} status.
+
+@item
+You may now either push it to the @code{staging} branch, or email
+your patch (created with @w{@code{git format-patch}}) to somebody
+who will push it for you.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@advanced{Yes, this process means that most patches wait between
+60-120 hours before reaching @code{master}. This is unfortunate, but
+given our limited resources for reviewing patches and a history of
+unintended breakage in @code{master}, this is the best compromise
+we have found.}
+
+@end itemize
+
+