[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Issue 2018 in lilypond: Patch: parser.yy: allow postevents in functi

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Issue 2018 in lilypond: Patch: parser.yy: allow postevents in function arguments in general
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:44:01 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:24:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> >   Patch-waiting: Patch is blocked, but still needs review
> I would have just kept it at at "Patch-new" until the block was gone.

no, because I'm obsessive about having work done by completely
autonomous scripts with no human intervention.  The past few
months have reinforced this for me: sometimes we just have a ton
of bad luck and lots of regular developers drop out or vastly
scale back their activities.

Patch-new should be handled with a minimum of fuss.  That means
automatically testing each one, automatically rejecting if any
automatic tests can reliably determine that it's bad patch (i.e.
failure to compile either binary or test output), and then waiting
for a human to glance a regtests and then press a button saying
"sure, they look plausible".

There's no way to automate the review stage (or now the countdown
stage, or waiting stage), so we'll park stuff there.

NB: the creation of a countdown can *also* be done automatically,
based on the available patches for review, which is why I didn't
want to leave it as just Patch-review.

hmm, I think I may have just convinced myself that we *did* need
another label.  sometime in Dec, I'll make a table of everything
we want to express for patches, and we'll see what the
combinatorics tell us.  Pigeonhole principle, here I come!

(my professor for first-year discrete mathematics loved the
pigeonhole principle, and often began lectures with a slide
showing a pigeon)

- Graham

reply via email to

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