[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:57:44 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:28:54AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> There is no reason whatsoever that this should only be done by a single
> person.
Totally!
> I would expect that _every_ person contributing more than two
> patches per month should be able, after uploading a patch, to be running
> test-patches.py and thus emptying the queue.
Could do, although I'd rather if somebody other than the original
submitter gave the ok for a patch. That way there's a fresh pair
of eyes looking at any differences, which would ideally make the
original submitters be more clear in the commit message about any
intentional changes to the regtests.
> b) the queue does not build up
> c) it is not always the same people who get stuck with testing
> d) he can be more nonchalant about testing his submission in advance
> since a bad test upload mostly implies more work for himself, and
> then not all that much.
I really like those possibilities, though.
I still think we should track Patchy responses, though. I mean,
have a completely automated system which tracks your karma. For
each patch,
- fails to apply to master: -10 karma (with an option to cancel
this penalty if master was updated after somebody submitted
their patch)
- fails to compile: -5 karma
- has unintended regtest differences: -3 karma
- has un-notified regtest differences which are accepted as ok
after some discusion: -1 karma. (yes, we want to penalize
people for not mentioning those differences up-front in the
git commit message!)
- passes test without problems: +1 karma
Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
process. I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
and whose patches tend to be problematic... but a completely
automated, objective approach would remove any personal bias.
- Graham
- Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/26
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, James, 2012/04/26
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Phil Holmes, 2012/04/27
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, David Kastrup, 2012/04/27
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, David Kastrup, 2012/04/27
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Graham Percival, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, David Kastrup, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Graham Percival, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, David Kastrup, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, James, 2012/04/28
- Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, David Kastrup, 2012/04/29
Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/28