On 26/07/2019 19:36, David Kastrup wrote:
...
I run Patchy when I notice something went to staging. Due to its cost,
I tend to abort it when I discover someone else pushing before me.
So it would appear that your repository (and probably that of Knut) have
a local master branch which would mask that the patch in question does
not produce output relative to the origin repository and thus produces
stuff that is not reducible. A local master branch tends to be a bad
idea (though not as bad as a local staging branch) since you don't want
to collect changes of your own on it.
However the patchy scripts set up a local master
e.g. If I manually delete my local master and then run the patchy scripts:
> Branch 'master' set up to track remote branch 'master' from 'origin'.
> Switched to a new branch 'master'
(or is that not what you are talking about?)
My workflow is that I always make sure that dev/local_working (where I
do my own changes before creating patches), local staging and local
master are always 'in sync' before I run patchy and that staging is cleaned.
It's no different than what I have always done.
So I wonder why the tests passed and my own patchy merge passed but
yours failed?
I am just worried that the veracity of my patch testing is not good enough
regards
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
