Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> I assume it uses the "normal" git cache on my computer
>>
>> Nope.  It uses whatever repository you specify in the LILYPOND_GIT
>> environment variable.
>
> But if I rely on other uses for the LILYPOND_GIT environment variable,
> then it must use my normal git stash.  Strikes me it would be safer to
> have a duplicate stash just for patchy, and a different variable.

I have had my fingers on the respective code in the past.  It uses the
repository as a read-only resource, with the exception of
a) running "git fetch" to get up-to-date branches
b) creating and deleting branches called something like test-staging (so
that you can reference later which "staging" was actually being tested)
and something like test-master-lock which is both used as a lock to
stop parallel instances of patchy to run, as well as a reference to the
master at the start of the test run.  Those separate branches are
created right after running git fetch and are later used for pushing the
results upstream if the results are ok.

So no, there is little point in not using your main git "stash" for
this.  Apart from it being more up-to-date in its remote branches than
you remember, and from two mysterious branches coming and going, it will
not be affected.  Most particularly your work directory and your
checkouts are not being touched.

This is for the staging patchy; the Rietveld patchy is a different beast
yet.

> In the scripts or in a config file?

config file as well as LILYPOND_GIT environment variable.  The scripts
themselves do not appear to need changes.

>> That is command for mailing the completion message somewhere.  I have no
>> idea what msmtp is supposed to be, but I replaced it with
>>
>>    mail dak
>>
>> on my system.  Which is not really what was intended, I guess, because
>> it mailed a mail to me addressed to Graham and the developer list.
>> msmtp would likely have bypassed me doing that.
>
> I don't have a mail account on that machine, so would need to
> configure it to use my normal SMTP provider, but don't know how to do
> that.

I presume any old command taking standard input should to.  Something
like

cat >> /tmp/patchy-completion-mails

or so should likely work.

-- 
David Kastrup