[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: staging vs. staging-broken-dec23
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: staging vs. staging-broken-dec23 |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:55:58 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 05:13:29PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Patchy is running every 6 hours at the moment (GMT / 6), and
> > there's no rush to get another release out, so let's just put
> > stuff into staging gradually.
>
> to see about a day's worth of development makes it hard to believe
> LilyPond development is a project on the brink of stagnation. Catching
> up in chunks of 6 hours might be a challenge.
"Chucks of 6 hours", not individual patches. Your parser stuff
has just been accepted and was merged with master. If I were
doing this, I'd add all the doc commits and misc stuff like 0.5
extra-spacing-width. If those are accepted, then that's already
taken care of half the commits in just two steps.
> It might be worth a try to teach a reasonably fast machine how
> to bisect mostly automatically when Patchy diagnoses a failure.
*shrug*
There's certainly a lot of automatic stuff we could do. Patchy
could correctly diagnose an old lockfile vs. actual problem in
git. Patchy could send a snippet of the logfile whenever there's
a build failure. etc. As far as such scripts go, Patchy is
fairly easy to understand.
I'm not going to be working on that, though. Too many other
problems I need to tackle. Patchy is a well-defined problem, it's
demonstrated the benefits, so now somebody else can work on it.
Cheers,
- Graham