> I would at least normally expect that you do a 'make' to see that it builds > against current tree - sometimes on the morning of the PATCH countdown, that > is hard because someone may push a patch and the new tree is merged before > the test scripts are run and you submitted a patch based on the tree before > the push. That can cause make problems, but those are usually rare.
before posting a patch, I always rebase against the most recent master. > Doing a make check is quite time consuming for some users and slow, so as > long as you don't mind the potential wait for your patch to be tested (by me > - others also run patchy but may not do the full make doc) think of it like > just 'good manners' to do at _least_ a make ;) of course I check make! In particular, what could arise is that I change foo(string s) to foo(const string &s) in derived class and not in base class. This would cause bad behaviour. I am very careful for this but of course, it is better to have tests. Also I check for compiler warnings but lilypond builds with a lot of compiler warnings which does not help. I think we should try to remove all warnings. Frédéric _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
