Re: Fwd: GDP Docs compilation FAILED (2011.09.23-03:32)

[Peekay Ex]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:55:26AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am somewhat surprised that the patch passed testing by someone else,
>> though.  It would seem that doc builds are not part of that.
>
> I think that James only does a normal make and make check;

Yes that is correct - I just follow the CG for reg test checking but
add the make test too.
> that's
> doable in 3 minutes on his computer, rather than the horrible wait
> of 30 minutes or something for a complete "make doc" from scratch.

a full Make doc takes about 15 minutes and I don't mind doing that if
it saves someone 3 hours (like Mr Kainhofer), but obviously I can't
make doc on all patches else i'd get through about 2 a day with the
make check as well and do nothing else.

I've done plenty of make docs if asked to help the project (put it in
the tracker / Rietveld specifically stated you'd like a make doc and
set the tracker to patch-new) and sometimes I will do a make doc if
*I* think it might need one even if not asked - for instance if
someone does something to the tely/texi of lilypond-book files. I just
don't have the knowledge to recognize when something in a .cc or other
file (like David's code changes) is a significant risk to break the
doc build - as ANY checkin could break a doc build potentially.

So I just need guidance and some patience on the submitter's behalf in
case I have other things to do first. I tend to test FIFO but may
defer as I also need to get some of the doc issues done too :)

-- 
--
James