On 12-04-20 06:54 AM, Colin Campbell wrote:
Hello, Federico
I've put your patch straight onto the countdown, and it may be that
one of the senior developers will give the OK to push it without
further review.
The reason it was overlooked is that, yes, you did go a bit outside
the usual channels. In the last few months, we've been relying on
patches being created with git-cl and lily-git, which means the issues
get created on Rietveld at the same time. They also get a status of
"patch-new", which gives the signal to the Patchy programs to test the
patch, and tells James or whoever is running Patchy, to change the
status top "patch-review". Because your patch is so small, you simply
attached it to the bug tracker issue, which means that none of the
Reitveld stuff happened. Both the robotic parts of the patch handling
system, and the almost robotic ones such as I, are looking for the
patch status of a Rietveld item to guide us in the action to be taken.
You'll be getting a copy of the update to the issue tracker item,
Federico, and I'll try and read the bug- list more carefully!
I can't believe I'm replying to my own message: how Eternal September!
To amplify my reply to Federico: if developers create similar tracker
items and attach a trivial patch without creating a Rietveld issue, it
would be very helpful if they would update the tracker item as
"patch-new" or perhaps even as "patch-review". I recognise that "-new"
without a Rietveld issue will give Patchy a case of heartburn, and
"-review" has some risk in that it bypasses the normal testing methods.
What do the testers think?
Colin
--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
