Hello, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:55:26AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> I am somewhat surprised that the patch passed testing by someone else, >> though. It would seem that doc builds are not part of that. > > I think that James only does a normal make and make check;
Yes that is correct - I just follow the CG for reg test checking but add the make test too. > that's > doable in 3 minutes on his computer, rather than the horrible wait > of 30 minutes or something for a complete "make doc" from scratch. a full Make doc takes about 15 minutes and I don't mind doing that if it saves someone 3 hours (like Mr Kainhofer), but obviously I can't make doc on all patches else i'd get through about 2 a day with the make check as well and do nothing else. I've done plenty of make docs if asked to help the project (put it in the tracker / Rietveld specifically stated you'd like a make doc and set the tracker to patch-new) and sometimes I will do a make doc if *I* think it might need one even if not asked - for instance if someone does something to the tely/texi of lilypond-book files. I just don't have the knowledge to recognize when something in a .cc or other file (like David's code changes) is a significant risk to break the doc build - as ANY checkin could break a doc build potentially. So I just need guidance and some patience on the submitter's behalf in case I have other things to do first. I tend to test FIFO but may defer as I also need to get some of the doc issues done too :) -- -- James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
