[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: regular patchy staging

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: regular patchy staging
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:51:04 -0000

----- Original Message ----- From: "James" <address@hidden>
To: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
Cc: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: regular patchy staging


2012/3/3 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James <address@hidden> wrote:
> I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts.

Have you read


Graham&David, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more
user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these
questions wouldn't have been asked.

Have you read

Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear.
Making vague claims of "it should be more user-friendly" does not

I guess in my case it just wasn't clear to me if we can run one
without the other 'all the time' (i.e. as I have now found out what
Phil does), and that the two scripts were not dependent (i.e. I can
only run one when the other has run or I should run the other when the
other has run). Phil and David have just made that more clearer to me.

Also should I be running both or would it better to just run one and
(for instance) let someone else 'merge'.

That was all.


I'd be happy if you could take over merge, since I'd assume you'd leave the machine on and could thus run it with a cron job and get email notifications of any problems as well as providing more frequent updates.

It may make sense to offer to David to take over test - this is very similar to what you had been doing with your manual patch testing. If I were running both, I think I'd run them as separate users, to avoid problems with one affecting the git repo of build directory of another.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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