[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: github mirror of lilypond?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: github mirror of lilypond?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:35:31 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On Jan 20, 2020, at 11:51, address@hidden wrote:
>> On 20/01/2020 16:16, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>>> Trivial things from a developer with push access can be just pushed.
>>>> Complex or otherwise contential things warrant a chance for
>>>> developers to take a look at it.  "Half a chance" seems an
>>>> unnecessary complication.
>>> Anyway, I was misled.  Han-Wen actually *did* create proper SF issues,
>>> which I seem to have missed because the mailer had again
>>> delays, delivering messages in time-reversed order.
>>>    Werner
>> and on of them doesn't 'make/make test-baseline'.
> A problem with the policy "trivial things can just be pushed" is that
> "trivial" is open for interpretation.  Even a change that was intended
> to affect only comments could have a bad impact if, say, it inserts an
> accidental stray character and is not tested sufficiently.
> James' report demonstrates that even if multiple devs agree that a
> change is trivial, it should still be tested before being pushed.

It's worth noting that our staging/master setup means that changes _are_
tested before being ultimately pushed to the major work resource for
developers.  If this blows up, it blocks the staging pipeline.  With our
current rate of commits and staging tests, disentangling this tends to
be comparatively benign.

As long as nothing, however trivial, gets pushed to master without
testing, the consequences are at least kept in check mostly.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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