Re: What's with the test-patches volunteers?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> It is close to two months that I have been the only person running
> test-patches, even though several volunteers claimed they would do so.
> It has been the main reason I shelled out €20 for a week of internet
> access during my spring vacation.
>
> My limited computing resources mean that I have to take every shortcut I
> can to get this reasonably done.  It is a bottleneck of development.  My
> shortcuts tend to lead to erroneous data for making decisions, cf
> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2468#c25>, and
> thus can alienate developers and cause unnecessary delays and hickups.
>
> It also means that I can spare no flexibility for dealing with things
> like submissions not following the rules
> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2480>, again
> possibly alienating developers instead of getting them more smoothly
> into our procedures.

And to add insult to injury, people don't even run "make check" on
submitted patches even if they are _supposed_ to change the typeset
result.  Instead they "fly by wire" and rely on me checking and
reporting the differences.  And then speculate about the description
instead of looking themselves.

Yesterday evening I have checked two contributions by different
contributors, and both showed _extensive_ bad changes.

Running "make check" is not all that expensive if you have reasonably up
to date hardware.  Certainly cheaper than running Patchy.

-- 
David Kastrup