[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: keep git master clean
Re: keep git master clean
Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:15:10 -0700
On 12/15/10 10:57 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:34:59AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> We've got to have some better process to handle this.
>> I don't know what it is.
> For a symptomatic treatment, this particular case could be checked
> make test
> instead of make doc. That'd be 5-10 minutes instead of an hour.
> Not ideal by any means, but better than nothing?
So can I consider it valid if I run make doc (not make doc-clean && make
doc) and make test and both succeed?
I'm in the midst of a make test right now. I'll get you my estimate of make
test time when I'm done. Of course, in this particular case, in order to
verify, I also have to do a make test-clean, because the bad regtest is part
of the snippet database, and I need to purge it.
>> Maybe a correct build system, so we don't need to do make doc-clean to
>> ensure things aren't broken.
> I'm pegging this at 200 hours, and I don't think I'm
> overestimating. That's a lot of bugfixes, new features,
> CG-writing, etc. :(
I think you are severely underestimating the time on this task, but that may
be just because I don't understand the build system at all. I'm not
advocating spending these 200 hours, by the way.
>> Maybe a separate branch that we can push changes to and only
>> gets moved to master once a week when it's been verified by a
> That's an interesting idea... I'll add it to the GOP list. If we
> can't find a technical solution, this might be the least-bad
> alternate option.
>> I can see the problem with confusing the new contributors. And I think we
>> should avoid it.
> I think the best short-term solution is:
> 1. accept that breakage sometimes happens. Sorry, my initial
> email was a bit too harsh for this.
> 2. accept that if a patch breaks something, revert it. No
> blame, no harm, no foul. Just get git master working again,
> then start discussing a fix.
I'm totally OK with that. I think I need to be more careful. I will try to
And I'm not at all offended by your original email, even if it was a bit
harsh. We're all working together with one main objective -- getting 2.14
out. And it's so close I can taste it!
I've got a plan for a patch to 1290 stewing in my subconscious -- I may be
able to get it done next week. If I can do that, we've got a branch point!
> For this specific regtest, I've been building groundwork for
> splitting the regtests into different directories (including one
> for "lilypond does not segfault if foo" or "lilypond should
> produce an error if bar"). Once we did that, we could make sure
> that tests which are intended to throw an error actually do throw
> an error, and not balk at the compile.
This would be totally cool. I was just about to ask if there is some way to
manage the "errors as warnings" flag from inside the regtests.
> The butcher's bill for that idea is 40 hours, BTW. And
> unfortunately, all the estimates in this email are for
> main-developer-time, not estimated-frog-time. :(
> Until/unless that happens, let's just nuke the 1440 regtest.
> There are *so* many other things in lilypond that are worse than
> that one. We're in a total triage situation here.
I'm also totally OK with throwing out the 1440 regtest. I was just about to
do it when you did it.