[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:57:44 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:28:54AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> There is no reason whatsoever that this should only be done by a single
> person.


> I would expect that _every_ person contributing more than two
> patches per month should be able, after uploading a patch, to be running
> and thus emptying the queue.

Could do, although I'd rather if somebody other than the original
submitter gave the ok for a patch.  That way there's a fresh pair
of eyes looking at any differences, which would ideally make the
original submitters be more clear in the commit message about any
intentional changes to the regtests.

> b) the queue does not build up
> c) it is not always the same people who get stuck with testing
> d) he can be more nonchalant about testing his submission in advance
>    since a bad test upload mostly implies more work for himself, and
>    then not all that much.

I really like those possibilities, though.

I still think we should track Patchy responses, though.  I mean,
have a completely automated system which tracks your karma.  For
each patch,
- fails to apply to master: -10 karma  (with an option to cancel
  this penalty if master was updated after somebody submitted
  their patch)
- fails to compile: -5 karma
- has unintended regtest differences: -3 karma
- has un-notified regtest differences which are accepted as ok
  after some discusion: -1 karma.  (yes, we want to penalize
  people for not mentioning those differences up-front in the
  git commit message!)
- passes test without problems: +1 karma

Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
process.  I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
and whose patches tend to be problematic... but a completely
automated, objective approach would remove any personal bias.

- Graham

reply via email to

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