Re: Motivational statistics
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:04 PM David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match >> >> the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable >> >> the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and >> >> the conference seems to have been remarkable. >> > >> > I am also forming more coherent ideas about the development process, >> > but I am still unsure about the final push process. As I understand >> > it, you have to push to staging, and then someone (David?) runs patchy >> > over the staging branch, verifies the regtest output, and pushes to >> > master. Is that roughly correct? >> >> No. staging moves without manual verification. There are different >> Patchy processes for staging and for issue review. The one for staging >> only checks that make, make test, and make doc all complete >> successfully. Several people run that as needed (we used to have a >> computer administered by James running it regularly every two hours, but >> his company rules have stopped this from being possible). >> >> The review patchy in contrast requires visual inspection of regtest >> results. The automation of the process deteriorated significantly after >> we had to stop using Google Code because the scripts have not been >> adapted to the current situation, and at the current point of time it is >> just James who does those tests with considerably more manual effort >> than previously. > > I'm confused then. Can you sketch what happens after a patch was > LGTM'd on Rietveld? LGTM on Rietveld is just input for James. The state of patches is tracked on the corresponding Sourceforge issues. The usual progression (unless discussions indicate otherwise) performed by James is from status Patch-new to Patch-review (assuming the patch passes his manual review). From that stage it progresses (assuming the discussions on both Rietveld and Sourceforge don't suggest otherwise) to Patch-countdown after some days, and then similarly to Patch-push. Once it has reached that state, the person taking responsibility for pushing the patch (typically the developer themselves) pushes it to staging. >From staging it progresses to master by the automated patch procedure performed by someone running patches/lilypond-patchy-staging from the lilypond-extra repository. > How does it get to staging, and how does master advance? -- David Kastrup
Re: Motivational statistics
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:04 PM David Kastrup wrote: > >> Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match > >> the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable > >> the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and > >> the conference seems to have been remarkable. > > > > I am also forming more coherent ideas about the development process, > > but I am still unsure about the final push process. As I understand > > it, you have to push to staging, and then someone (David?) runs patchy > > over the staging branch, verifies the regtest output, and pushes to > > master. Is that roughly correct? > > No. staging moves without manual verification. There are different > Patchy processes for staging and for issue review. The one for staging > only checks that make, make test, and make doc all complete > successfully. Several people run that as needed (we used to have a > computer administered by James running it regularly every two hours, but > his company rules have stopped this from being possible). > > The review patchy in contrast requires visual inspection of regtest > results. The automation of the process deteriorated significantly after > we had to stop using Google Code because the scripts have not been > adapted to the current situation, and at the current point of time it is > just James who does those tests with considerably more manual effort > than previously. I'm confused then. Can you sketch what happens after a patch was LGTM'd on Rietveld? How does it get to staging, and how does master advance? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Re: Motivational statistics
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM Urs Liska wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to get a better understanding from my impression of the >> significant increase in traffic on lilypond-devel. >> >> For this I did some statistics on James' "PATCHES - Countdown" >> messages. Since patches are counted multiple times while flowing >> through the process I think the only relevant metric is the "New" >> section, and this should not be calculated by the countdown message but >> averaged by day. And the results are convincing: >> >> Four weeks leading to the Salzburg conference: >> 0,32 new patches per day >> >> Since Salzburg: >> 1,46 patches per day > > Thanks for the stats. I guess it's mostly me, though. > > $ git log --author=hanwen --since 2016 | grep ^commit| wc > 16 32 768 git shortlog -ns --since 2020-01-15 origin 27 Dan Eble 17 Jonas Hahnfeld 16 Han-Wen Nienhuys 2 David Stephen Grant 1 David Kastrup 1 Werner Lemberg -- David Kastrup
Re: Motivational statistics
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM Urs Liska wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to get a better understanding from my impression of the >> significant increase in traffic on lilypond-devel. >> >> For this I did some statistics on James' "PATCHES - Countdown" >> messages. Since patches are counted multiple times while flowing >> through the process I think the only relevant metric is the "New" >> section, and this should not be calculated by the countdown message but >> averaged by day. And the results are convincing: >> >> Four weeks leading to the Salzburg conference: >> 0,32 new patches per day >> >> Since Salzburg: >> 1,46 patches per day > > Thanks for the stats. I guess it's mostly me, though. > > $ git log --author=hanwen --since 2016 | grep ^commit| wc > 16 32 768 > >> Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match >> the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable >> the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and >> the conference seems to have been remarkable. > > I am also forming more coherent ideas about the development process, > but I am still unsure about the final push process. As I understand > it, you have to push to staging, and then someone (David?) runs patchy > over the staging branch, verifies the regtest output, and pushes to > master. Is that roughly correct? No. staging moves without manual verification. There are different Patchy processes for staging and for issue review. The one for staging only checks that make, make test, and make doc all complete successfully. Several people run that as needed (we used to have a computer administered by James running it regularly every two hours, but his company rules have stopped this from being possible). The review patchy in contrast requires visual inspection of regtest results. The automation of the process deteriorated significantly after we had to stop using Google Code because the scripts have not been adapted to the current situation, and at the current point of time it is just James who does those tests with considerably more manual effort than previously. -- David Kastrup
Re: Motivational statistics
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM Urs Liska wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wanted to get a better understanding from my impression of the > significant increase in traffic on lilypond-devel. > > For this I did some statistics on James' "PATCHES - Countdown" > messages. Since patches are counted multiple times while flowing > through the process I think the only relevant metric is the "New" > section, and this should not be calculated by the countdown message but > averaged by day. And the results are convincing: > > Four weeks leading to the Salzburg conference: > 0,32 new patches per day > > Since Salzburg: > 1,46 patches per day Thanks for the stats. I guess it's mostly me, though. $ git log --author=hanwen --since 2016 | grep ^commit| wc 16 32 768 > Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match > the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable > the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and > the conference seems to have been remarkable. I am also forming more coherent ideas about the development process, but I am still unsure about the final push process. As I understand it, you have to push to staging, and then someone (David?) runs patchy over the staging branch, verifies the regtest output, and pushes to master. Is that roughly correct? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Motivational statistics
Hi all, I wanted to get a better understanding from my impression of the significant increase in traffic on lilypond-devel. For this I did some statistics on James' "PATCHES - Countdown" messages. Since patches are counted multiple times while flowing through the process I think the only relevant metric is the "New" section, and this should not be calculated by the countdown message but averaged by day. And the results are convincing: Four weeks leading to the Salzburg conference: 0,32 new patches per day Since Salzburg: 1,46 patches per day Of course these are no scientifically hardened results - but they match the feeling of excited frenzy visible on this list. However sustainable the effect may be, the short term impact of the developer meeting and the conference seems to have been remarkable. Urs
