Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak.

[John Mandereau]

Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 09.54 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> There's no script.  Colin Campbell occasionally does it manually.

There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary%20Modified

With the query Patchy currently uses in a server setup

Patch=new,review,needs_work,countdown status:New,Accepted,Started 
modified-after:today-30

every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
IMHO all issues that have not changed since 2 months and have
Patch-needs_work should be labeled Patch-abandoned, could we add a
script for this?

That said, I think that Patchy should check the date of each patch and
not test any patch older than 30 days (based on Rietveld data or the
date of the comment with the link to Rietveld in the issue tracker),
with possibly an option to bypass this check.


> That said, I don't think that Grenouille should be testing
> Patch-needs_work.

I do, because from time to time false negatives happen, i.e.
Patch-needs_work might be set unproperly, so IMHO some test comparison
should be put online anyway so that other people can double-check more
easily; the numerous false negatives and tons of "parsed objects should
be dead" warnings probably caused unreliable memory from Grenouille
don't always help with this, but in some cases they may do.


>   Only Patch-new really needs testing, with the
> possible addition of some new item like Patch-needs_help.

I intially added Patch-countdown to test more patches that anyway had
not seen regtests comparison put online before, and could remove it now,
but I'd like to keep looking for Patch-review, to bring the plus of
putting regtests comparison online.

Best
J