[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Email from Phil's patchy

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: Email from Phil's patchy
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:10:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0

Am 29.07.2012 11:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

Am 29.07.2012 10:10, schrieb David Kastrup:

Now it is true that we probably did not have a formal discussion of
this in any rate, and you are probably quite keeping with some sort
of de-facto standard and are in the unlucky position of standing next
when I am waking up to some problem wildly thrashing my arms.

Sorry for that.
No problem. I was a bit disappointed that this patch being into
staging has to be reworked, but I assumed that "make doc"
is covered within the "make test-redo; make check" cycle,
and I was proven wrong.
"make doc" is really expensive.
   And the staging branch is our ultimate
safety net (more often than not, patches gone through testing and review
need rebasing before getting pushed, and we don't start a new
test-patchy for that), intended to catch unexpected kinds of problem.

Which this, in a way, was.

Meanwhile, "make doc" succeded. I had to insert a
check for glyph = #f in bar-line::compound-barline, too,
which was not covered before.
Well, it was more or less coincidence that made that problem turn up
(which should really have been discussed and resolved in review in a
perfect world), but if we are handed on a platter the chance to improve
a previous choice including an example of why that would be a good idea,
it would be a shame to waste it.
At least I learned from this incident that doing a "make doc"
after the tests are clean is not the worst option either.



reply via email to

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