[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: regular patchy staging

From: James
Subject: Re: regular patchy staging
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 09:05:41 +0000


On 3 March 2012 09:03, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had
>> been running patchy so figured it was now covered
> There is staging-patchy.  It does not require manual work, just
> processing power, but lots of that.  It is not bothered if people run it
> in parallel (the worst that happens is that cycles are wasted).
> I still run it occasionally, and it is rather a holdup on my setup.
> Then there is test-patchy.  It takes less processing power, but the
> results need to be evaluated manually and an appropriate comment made.
> It does not matter if people run it in parallel, but it is a bit of a
> nuisance if the manual commenting overlaps.
> staging-patchy and test-patchy currently use the same testing directory
> (why?), so it will lead to problems if both are run on the same machine
> at the same time.
>> I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts.
>> Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear
>> on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against
>> current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with
>> master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should
>> I just be doing one of them?
> lilypond-patchy-staging (?) is the more important one since it takes
> more processing power and less manual intervention.

OK thanks, I'll focus on that one.



reply via email to

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