[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: github mirror of lilypond?

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: github mirror of lilypond?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:18:52 +0000
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

On 1/19/20, 3:33 PM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden> wrote:

    On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:41 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
    > > I agree.  IMHO, the main repository should stay at Savannah, though.
    > I strongly disagree with this.
    > If we are serious about code review (and it seems that we are), the
    > code review has to be integrated with the git hosting system. With the
    > current setup, there needs to be infrastructure that takes a patch for
    > review, applies it to source tree, runs tests, and then reports back.
    > On submission, something has to apply the patch, and push the result
    > to the git master branch.
    And come to think of it, it is also the reason for an incredible
    oddity in our current process which is the "countdown". Normally, once
    a change has been reviewed as OK and passed CI, it is just submitted.
    But in the past, they would enter some limbo (because nobody would do
    the work to submit them), and so we had to institute a countdown
    process, which means that it takes a minimum of 2 days before a
    contributor can see their patch go live.

No, the "countdown" is a last chance for people to comment before the patch is 
approved.  No single individual can approve a patch.  Multiple reviewers can 
say it looks good, but a single reviewer can point out a problem that requires 
review.  No specific set of review approvals constitute acceptance.

So "countdown" serves as a warning to anybody who might have issues.  
Essentially "if you don’t comment in the next two days, it will be approved.  
So if you care, you'd better review it right now."

Our current process is:

Contributor submits patch -- status is set to "New"

James applies the patch to the source tree, runs tests, and reports back.
        If tests pass, status is set to "Review"
        If tests fail, status is set to "Needs work".  Modified patches in 
"Needs Work" status go back to "New".

Review period is entered, and James (the patch meister) monitors the comments.  
After the specified period, if all the comments are positive, the status is set 
to "Countdown".

If there are a significant negative comments, the status is set to "Needs 
work".  Modified patches in "Needs work" status go back to "New"

If the countdown period passes with no negative comments, the status is set to 

I don't think it's accurate to say patches are in limbo.  



    Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

reply via email to

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