lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:24:07 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux)

Colin Campbell <address@hidden> writes:

> On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Thanks.  Note that this does _not_ mean regtests and doc builds: we have
>> automatisms for that.  It means running your own files that use this
>> feature, and reading the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new
>> incarnation of the feature make sense to you.
>>
>> Opinions are more important than results here, and results are only
>> important as _experiences_, namely connected with your own, individual
>> work.
>>
>> Don't bother doing the job of the computer.  We need that of the human.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> As an interjection from a semi-human part of the process: I ordinarily
> put patches on countdown rather aggressively, with the inent of
> keeping them flowing through the system.  I could easily restrict
> countdowns to those patches which have an explicit LGTM from a senior
> developer.  Another approach might be to ask developers to flag their
> especially critical patches with a "needs LGTM".  I'm afraid both
> would slow the patch clearing process, but either should give the sort
> of explicit review David is seeking.

Either way we have too little developer time to go round.  I still
decided to belabor Werner on this issue because he basically outed
himself as a user and fan of the feature, and I had little else to work
with here.  Like with the discussion groups: if we don't find a way to
have a working trickle-down started for reviews, developers will get
congested and exhausted eventually, physically (including their time
budget) as well as mentally.  It is good that we get into a shape where
we need the humans mostly to do the job of humans only.  But we can't
replace that.  And so we'll need more humans.

-- 
David Kastrup




reply via email to

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