Re: CG regtest info

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Valentin Villenave
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> - I'm not so certain about [...]
>
> Will do. I'm a bit rusty WRT doc work. (Or LilyPond work at all, really.)

It might be a good idea to either send a patch to me privately (as
most doc people do), or post it on reitveld (which the code people
do).  In fact, if you're interested in the CG, it might be good to
post it on reitveld whether or not you'd be happy with only me giving
comments, since that would give you practice with the procedures we
expect code people to follow.  You'd then be much better placed to
write docs explaining that procedure, or simply to participate in
discussions about whether it's convenient or too much bother or
whatnot.

> As for the make check/ make redo/ make whatnot part, I'll write this
> as a draft but I hope someone will check and correct my wild guesses.

It doesn't work that way.  This isn't a wiki; this is our official
documentation.  If you have no clue what you're doing, don't do it.

Nobody is going to check it; we'll just have one *more* misleading and
inaccurate description of this process, in addition to the one that's
already in CG 2 or 3.

> It's not like I'm familiar with this stuff at all... :-/

Well, as far as I understand it,
1) you have a passing interest in bugs,
2) you have a passing interest in lilypond development,
3) especially the health of the development community,
4) you have a fast computer.

Why not *become* familiar with testing patches?  There's 10 patches
(well, probably only 5 that are relevant) that need testing to see if
they screw up any regtest.  Why not figure out how to do these tests
yourself (various people have written extensively about this procedure
in the mailing list archives), then do them, and *then* write about
how to do them?

Cheers,
- Graham