On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:04 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match > >> the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable > >> the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and > >> the conference seems to have been remarkable. > > > > I am also forming more coherent ideas about the development process, > > but I am still unsure about the final push process. As I understand > > it, you have to push to staging, and then someone (David?) runs patchy > > over the staging branch, verifies the regtest output, and pushes to > > master. Is that roughly correct? > > No. staging moves without manual verification. There are different > Patchy processes for staging and for issue review. The one for staging > only checks that make, make test, and make doc all complete > successfully. Several people run that as needed (we used to have a > computer administered by James running it regularly every two hours, but > his company rules have stopped this from being possible). > > The review patchy in contrast requires visual inspection of regtest > results. The automation of the process deteriorated significantly after > we had to stop using Google Code because the scripts have not been > adapted to the current situation, and at the current point of time it is > just James who does those tests with considerably more manual effort > than previously.
I'm confused then. Can you sketch what happens after a patch was LGTM'd on Rietveld? How does it get to staging, and how does master advance? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
