[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: makelsr

From: James Lowe
Subject: Re: makelsr
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:15:43 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1

Thomas et al.

On 28/12/2018 14:13, David Kastrup wrote:
Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

Hi all,

I think we need some guidelines in the case a new lsr-snippet is used
for the docs.

James askes not to run makelsr, because a plethora of changes will
clutter the patch-set.
OTOH, a patch can't stand alone and can't be applied for testings by
reviewers without makelsr. So I voted for doing makelsr.

The patch can be tested with makelsr as 'part' of the test process - this is what I have done since I have been testing patches. After every ./configure, make, make test-baseline and patch apply, I then run a before I run a new make, make check and a make doc.

There are two reasons really

1. The Rietveld has no noise in it for others to have to care about also doesn't cause a problem when I am testing against a current master that has, by unfortunate coincidence, just had a patch merged that also updated the snippet docs (because it needed a makelstr run itself). This would, almost certainly, cause a conflict during testing when I tried to merge the newer patch, with its own makelsr included, because of all the 'snippet' doc files that would have just been updated post older patch - if you see what I mean?

unless anyone else can come up with a more robust method, keeping makelesr out of the review and patch to be tested is easier for all. A simple - 'requires makelsr run' in the Tracker or Rietveld will alert those that want to test the patch themselves that this needs to be done.



reply via email to

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