[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Update Rietveld patches

From: Colin Campbell
Subject: Re: Update Rietveld patches
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:00:53 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0

On 12-04-02 04:18 PM, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
Well, I must say that I don't understand what I'm expected to do. Could you please explain me once more and say also what "Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary" means? Especially "add issue nbr to summary".


On 2 April 2012 03:53, Colin Campbell <address@hidden> wrote:
The items below are the result of a search on Rietveld for open items associated with the lilypond trunk.  In some cases, the tracker item has been closed, so the Rietveld item should also be closed.  In others, work continues but it would be good to cross-reference the tracker item in the Rietveld item summary or title.

5862052    2310    Milimetr88     Corrected style of comments         Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary

Good to meet you, Łukasz, at least by email!

Our patch tracking system has two parts: one part is hosted on the Rietveld site, at The code review process allows us to use special tools, such as diff comparisons, to encourage and record discussion among developers regarding a proposed patch. The Rietveld tool assigns an issue number when a patch is first created, and later changes are attached as changes to the original. Your first upload created issue 5862502 on Rietveld. After some discussion, and possibly a glitch in using git-cl, a new issue, number 5975054, got created on Rietveld, leaving the older one still open. As you are the owner, and if I am correct that the new one replaces the first, that you should go onto Rietveld and update 5862502 to say it was replaced by 5975054, then mark 5862052 "closed".

The second part of my request was to go to 5975054 and update either the title or the summary to mention Issue 2310. That is because the Reitveld tool handles code patches well, but cannot track any other kind of issue, such as requests for changes, bug reports and other things which might not lead to code patches. The issue tracker on has a very usable interface, and works well for tracking various kinds of issues and their status. It, too, assigns a number when an issue is created, usually by the Bug Squad in response to a bug report. Developers also create issues, to announce enhancements for example, and this is how Janek created issue 2310, to document the work you and he are doing.

Tools which we have written for the purpose are aware of the two unconnected sources of information about patches and have been modified to allow you to refer to an existing issue number (2310) when uploading a patch to Rietveld (5975054), but this only handles one side of the connection: in the Google issue, the Rietveld issue number is added, but the only way to get the connection from Rietveld, at least at the moment and as far as I understand it, is to ask the developer to refer to the Google tracker number in the title or summary of the issue. You might, for example, simply change the title of 5975054 to " T2310 Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two" and it would be clear at a glance where the rest of the conversation can be found.

I hope that rather lengthy explanation helps, Łukasz, and do forgive my error in my first email, referring to 5975074 when it should have been 5975054!


Colin the Elder
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. 
You need to be able to throw something back. 
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]