[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Issue 1356 in lilypond: LilyPond-style comments embedded inaScheme e

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Issue 1356 in lilypond: LilyPond-style comments embedded inaScheme expression can't include special characters
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:32:02 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:28:45PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
> "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
> >I honestly believe that less than 50% of bug squad volunteers are
> >actively working after 4 weeks.  Am I incorrect as a matter of
> >fact?
> I don't know the history.  I believe the current squad, as shown on
> the CG, has 100% active members.

Don't believe, *demonstrate*.  It's Christmas time -- we can
find out who's been naughty and nice.

Not that I suggest it's time to freak out if some new helpers are
less active than others; it's only been a week or two, so they can
legitimately still be reading the CG.  But I really want to
encourage you and Carl to run those scripts; there should be no
guesswork / estimation / belief about this.  You should check the
records once a week or two, and actively ask volunteers if they
need clarification if they fall behind.

> >Short term: sure, let's make "verify a patch" only a task for the
> >bug meister.  The bug meister can either check patches in master
> >via git, or else just mark any Patch issue as verified without
> >checking anything.

(incidently, Carl is correct: by the above, I was only referring
to patches whose only verification is "the patch is in git
[master/staging], not "does XYZ work")

> Whoa.  I've just trained the new squadders to do this based on what
> was _agreed_ wrt checking the patch was pushed to staging.  With the
> volume of patches we have, this is one of the larger jobs to do, and
> so it really does waste my time.

David's point is that it only takes a few seconds if you know git.
And even that amount of testing could be automated.

>  Unless there is clear agreement to
> change what we currently do (and I only see one person dissenting)
> then we go with the current status quo, as documented in the current
> CG in GIT.

Sure, I'm fine with that for now.

We can revisit it when GOP starts up, potentially with automatic
scripts.  In fact, if we keep on having patches whose only
verification is "it is in git [staging/master]", then that can be
handled by Patchy.

- Graham

reply via email to

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