Re: Regtest rating project

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 02:22:48PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
> <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> I'm content to propose changes myself.  But I really don't think 200
> patches on Rietveld and 200 issues are the way to go.

It doesn't need to be 200 patches.  If I'm correct about half the
issues being typos, then I'd suggest making 4 patches with about
25 regtest-typo-fixes in each.  That's quite reviewable; spending
maybe 1 hour, once a week, will clear up the backlog of typos in a
month.

Of course, the amount of "trivial" changes was a complete guess; I
don't have the actual data.  But I'm fairly confident about the
power-log distribution; it holds true in so many other situations
that I think it's a reasonable first guess in this one (in the
absense of any actual data).

Once those are gone, we can think about the others.  Maybe there's
a bunch of beaming regtests that need extra attention, but
developer X is currently working on beaming so he could offer to
take care of those dozen regtests.  (and then he could submit
those fixes as either one patch or multiple patches depending on
what else he's working on).  Maybe somebody is fixing slur
collisions, and thus it makes sense for him to fix those 20 slur
regtests.  etc.

- Graham