[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of mak
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak. |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:52:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:38:51AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
That's definitely overkill! What if I post a comment saying "yes,
this patch definitely looks bad"?
> 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?
We could, but I think there's a difference between people who work
slow/infrequently vs. abandoned patches. I mean, Mike's skyline
patch and Ian's guile 2.0 work have probably both seen periods of
not being changed for 2 months, but both are still being worked
on.
I don't think that we should automatically declare patches to be
abandoned.
> > 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,
In that case, I would expect the patch author (who should be much
more familiar with his work than any automated script) to manually
set it to Patch-new. Failing that, any other developer could set
patch-new to trigger a new test if the discussion suggests that
the previous test results are not correct.
> 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.
Sure, but again I think that we can/should rely on humans manually
saying "let's get a new set of test results for this".
- Graham
- Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Trevor Daniels, 2012/08/30
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., John Mandereau, 2012/08/30
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Graham Percival, 2012/08/30
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., John Mandereau, 2012/08/30
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak.,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., John Mandereau, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Graham Percival, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., John Mandereau, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Graham Percival, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., James, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., John Mandereau, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., James, 2012/08/31
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Trevor Daniels, 2012/08/30
- Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Marc Hohl, 2012/08/30
Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak., Trevor Daniels, 2012/08/30