Re: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools (probable withdraw)

[Colin Campbell]

On 11-09-25 03:57 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 2011/9/24 Graham Percival<address@hidden>:
> > I don't see this "proposal" (really more of "a set of musings")
> > going anywhere.  There's been a bunch of ideas:
> >   - tool X, tool Y
> >   - make better use of our current tools
> >   - do a survey of what other projects do
> > but nothing has made a significant amount of people go "yeah, that
> > the right direction to move in!".
> >
> > If somebody is feeling optimistic about the discussion and thinks
> > I'm totally off-base on this, we can talk about that... but I'm
> > thinking that it needs some serious thought and energy, and at the
> > moment I think I should be putting my energy towards removing pain
> > points in our development for which we've already agreed on what
> > to do.
> Please give me a few more days to fiddle with Google Code review
> sandbox set up by Carl.  I was busy and didn't tested it yet, but i'm
> planning to do so.
>
>
> 2011/9/24 Peekay Ex<address@hidden>:
> > There seems to be four basic cases of how 'stuff' gets created in this regard.
> >
> > 1. Email from person (I'd like LP to do this, or LP breaks when you do X)
> > 2. Rietveld issue with no tracker
> > 3. Tracker issue with no Rietveld (usually RFEs or Devs/experienced
> > users who spot a bug)
> > 4. Rietveld and Tracker are created at the same time
> I think that
> 1) should be forwarded to bug- and converted into an issue by Bug Squad,
> 3) (problems without solution) are ok,
> 2) should not exist (i.e. a tracker issue should be added immediately)
> 4) is my favourite way of doing things :)
>
> After some thinking my opinion is what we really need is a code review
> tool that allows to see all issues related to LilyPond, give them
> labels (like patch-push etc). attach images to comments (to illustrate
> how regtests fail for example).  Then we could move all patch-related
> discussions and activity to that place, instead of spreading it
> between Rietveld and Google tracker.  Here's a perfect counterexample:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4974075/
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1193
> Notice how Piers wasn't initially aware of the tracker issue
> (http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1193#c21) and how
> currently things are out of sync, which prohibits me from taking
> action (http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1193#c24 ,
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4974075/#msg16) and confuses James'
> testing (http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1193#c25).
>
> cheers,
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


FWIW, Janek's bit above is just what I've been saying, and I believe it 
is also what James has been suggesting.  The meta-problem seemas to be 
that there are developers who see the world as patches submitte4d and 
discussed by email, and there are Frogs, newer developers, Bug Squad 
volunteers and a patch meister who just want to have the whole picture 
in one place.  Sure, patches *can* be managed in either, both, or 
neither of the two special-purpose tools we use, and sure, *someone* 
favours each permutation, but speaking as a relatively new, relatively 
unskilled contributor, I can't see why locating and implementing a code 
management system which handles the process as well as centralising the 
discussion, is a Bad Thing.  Part of the reason Graham found those 
"lost" patches is that we're not using the right tool for the job: an 
issue tracker which has no knowledge of any resulting patches is 
severely limited.  A code review tool which requires knowing a specific 
issue number or developer's 'nym in order to find a patch, is useful 
only on a single host, where no other projects have access.


There are dead horses being beaten here, and perhaps this is one, but I 
firmly believe that lilypond is in the big leagues, with a big league 
community of developers and supporters, and it is time to move to a 
specialised code management tool, and leave behind the collection of ad 
hoc generic tools held together with unenforceable manual procedures 
that serverd a small community several years ago.

I speak bluntly, I realise, and I apologise for any offence given, but 
my opinion is firm and based not just on what I've seen in the lilypond 
community, but on general organisational principles, observed over a 
35-year career.

Cheers,
Colin

--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both 
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )