Re: build system work

[Colin Campbell]

On 11-03-04 02:09 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:
> > On 11-03-04 01:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/patch-handling
> > For the sake of keeping an eye on the issues list, looking for
> > "patch-review" then applying the test as listed, I'm pretty
> > comfortable with offering to take that on, Graham, especially if it
> > frees up more highly-leveraged time than mine.
> Excellent!  Although it's the other way around... and I see that
> the CG is misleading on this point.  You should look at all *non*
> patch-review issues, and see if they "deserve" to be patch-review.
> Developers aren't expected to look at patches that aren't
> patch-review.
>
> - Any Patch-new should be categorized as Patch-review (if it
>    passes the tests), or Patch-needs_work if not.
>
> - Any Patch-needs_work or Patch-abandoned that has an updated
>    version of the patch, should be tested to see if it can be
>    Patch-review.  For this point, you need to skim lilypond-devel
>    to see what's been updated.
>
> I'll think about a CG patch tomorrow... actually, could you make
> one?  That'll be a quick test of your git setup, and your
> understanding of the issue, and also saves me 15 minutes having to
> think of how to phrase it in the CG.
>
>
> PS I'm fairly certain that at the moment, all "needs_work" issues
> do not have any "more recent" drafts that you need to look at.

Actually, and before I go stepping on toes in all directions, I wouldn't 
mind some guidance on a couple of things, please.  CG 12.2 Meisters 
describes the Frog Meister as being responsible for code patches from 
(relatively) inexperienced contributors, basically shepherding the 
patches through the review and acceptance process and pushing when 
finally accepted.  However, CG 8.6 Patch Handling talks about a Patch 
Meister with possible helpers; is this what you were talking about, 
Graham, and is there any duplication here?  I've cleaned out a lot of 
old -devel mail, so I don't recall the results of a discussion a year or 
so ago about patch handling, and I've no interest in adding more 
bureaucracy.  Another possible discussion would centre on the link 
between the bug squad and patches: in many ways, patches arise in 
response to bug squaddies creating issues, so perhaps Phil Holmes needs 
to have input here.  To be clear, I've no worries about taking  on the 
(clarified) task, I just don't want to step on toes; I also don't think 
a patch meister would need help, given the role of the bug squad and the 
devel community: it's mostly a nanny function, just making sure we all 
play nice and look after each other.

At any rate, how do you feel about creating a new mail account called 
address@hidden which would be forwarded to whomever has the 
Patch-Meister role.  Also, the CG and reitveld would require that 
address@hidden be copied when a patch is created or revised.  That 
way, the patch meister can filter mail, and the role can be swapped 
around for vacations, ABENDs, and so forth.

Colin

--
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who
have too little.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)