Merge branch 'master' into lilypond/translation

[lilypond.git] / Documentation / contributor / administration.itexi

diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
index 9ee46b955ea407526edbe098371a400981ceed01..36ead431e159695f3989bc9ec7861ce3fe57eb8c 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
+++ b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ don't fit anywhere else.
 The Contributor's Guide as a whole is still a work in progress,
 but some chapters are much more complete than others.  Chapters
 which are @qq{almost finished} should not have major changes
-without a discussion on @code{-devel}; in other chapters, a
+without a discussion on @w{@code{-devel}}; in other chapters, a
 disorganized @qq{wiki-style dump} of information is encouraged.
 
 Do not change (other than spelling mistakes) without discussion:
@@ -110,9 +110,9 @@ Currently: Francisco
 @item
 Frog Meister: is responsible for code patches from (relatively)
 inexperienced contributors.  Keeps track of patches, does initial
-reviewing of those patches, sends them to @code{-devel} when
+reviewing of those patches, sends them to @w{@code{-devel}} when
 they've had some initial review on the Frog list, pesters the
-@code{-devel} community into actually reviewing said patches, and
+@w{@code{-devel}} community into actually reviewing said patches, and
 finally pushes the patches once they're accepted.  This person is
 @emph{not} responsible for training new programmers, because that
 would be far too much work -- he job is @qq{only} to guide
@@ -505,6 +505,24 @@ amount of current material in either form, are important.
 
 (prep: 5 hours.  discuss: 15 hours)
 
+@item @strong{always make an issue number for patches}:
+there is a proposal that we should always have a google code issue
+number for every patch.  This proposal is closely tied to our
+choice of patch review tool; if we switch to a different tool (as
+suggested in a different proposal), this proposal may become moot.
+
+(prep: 1 hour.  discuss: 5 hours)
+
+@item @strong{initalizer lists}:
+shoudl we use initalizer lists for C++?  AFAIK they make no
+difference for built-in types, but there's some weird case where
+it's more efficient for objects, or something.
+
+Probably not worth making this a weekly thing on its own, but we
+can probably wrap it up with some other code-related questions.
+
+(prep: 15 minutes.  discuss: 3 hours)
+
 @end itemize
 
 @node Policy decisions (finished)
@@ -536,6 +554,19 @@ any @code{.py} file in lilypond git.  All such files should be
 converted to use spaces only.
 
 
+@subheading GOP-PROP 2: mentors and frogs
+
+Nothing much was decided.  The list of responsibilities was
+slightly altered; see the new one in @ref{Mentors}.  We should
+encourage more use of the Frogs mailing list.  There's a list of
+contributor-mentor pairs in:
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/people/mentors.txt}
+@end smallexample
+
+That's pretty much it.
+
 
 @node Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
 @section Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
@@ -864,6 +895,11 @@ and never allowing
   \transpose c d e1
 @end verbatim
 
+@item
+What should be the officially encouraged way of writing music for
+transposing instruments? Maybe it should be simplified?
+See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00130.html
+
 @end itemize