Re: regular patchy staging
A bit late answer, sorry... On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: GrahamDavid, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these questions wouldn't have been asked. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear. Making vague claims of it should be more user-friendly does not help. There's nothing unclear in that process. I just think that all this could be automated (turned into one step run this command), and i'll gladly do this automation - when i have some time (estimated date: summer). sorry for not being more helpful, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
Hello, 2012/3/2 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: Any advance on having a regular patchy staging compile? like, every 6 hours or something? Currently it's David who is running Patchy (i am amazed by his involvement), and he lacks processing power to do this more often. I think Patchy could be improved a bit to be more user-friendly (that's just my personal opinion), thus allowing James (for example) to run it more easily. I want to get back to work on Patchy, but i'm totally buried under GSoC and other things; i cannot magically multiply my time despite my sincere wishes to the contrary :( I am back from my break (and the internet connection is much better if still not great - tops out at 300kb/s which is ok) and have been going through the emails that had come in the last week or so, I'm just about caught up and have done a few doc tracker items to boot, and have been trying to get patchy working following the instructions in the CG - they are still a bit vague but we can build on that. I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had been running patchy so figured it was now covered and had been trying to broaden my knowledge elsewhere (for example working out how to update LilyDev - I see a few requests in that area), but if there is still a need for me to run patchy - if only to take the load off - I'll refocus on that. I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should I just be doing one of them? It isn't clear from the files I download which does what and which I don't need if I only want to do one or the other. I am working this weekend but will have some free time in the evening. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: I am back from my break (and the internet connection is much better if still not great - tops out at 300kb/s which is ok) and have been going through the emails that had come in the last week or so, I'm just about caught up and have done a few doc tracker items to boot, and have been trying to get patchy working following the instructions in the CG - they are still a bit vague but we can build on that. I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) Not quite. I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should I just be doing one of them? It isn't clear from the files I download which does what and which I don't need if I only want to do one or the other. GrahamDavid, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these questions wouldn't have been asked. I will volunteer to do this, but i have to finish GSoC thing first. (sorry for not providing answers to your questions, James, i don't know them at the moment) cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes: I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had been running patchy so figured it was now covered There is staging-patchy. It does not require manual work, just processing power, but lots of that. It is not bothered if people run it in parallel (the worst that happens is that cycles are wasted). I still run it occasionally, and it is rather a holdup on my setup. Then there is test-patchy. It takes less processing power, but the results need to be evaluated manually and an appropriate comment made. It does not matter if people run it in parallel, but it is a bit of a nuisance if the manual commenting overlaps. staging-patchy and test-patchy currently use the same testing directory (why?), so it will lead to problems if both are run on the same machine at the same time. I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should I just be doing one of them? lilypond-patchy-staging (?) is the more important one since it takes more processing power and less manual intervention. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
Hello, On 3 March 2012 09:03, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: James pkx1...@gmail.com writes: I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had been running patchy so figured it was now covered There is staging-patchy. It does not require manual work, just processing power, but lots of that. It is not bothered if people run it in parallel (the worst that happens is that cycles are wasted). I still run it occasionally, and it is rather a holdup on my setup. Then there is test-patchy. It takes less processing power, but the results need to be evaluated manually and an appropriate comment made. It does not matter if people run it in parallel, but it is a bit of a nuisance if the manual commenting overlaps. staging-patchy and test-patchy currently use the same testing directory (why?), so it will lead to problems if both are run on the same machine at the same time. I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should I just be doing one of them? lilypond-patchy-staging (?) is the more important one since it takes more processing power and less manual intervention. OK thanks, I'll focus on that one. -- -- James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
Snip all and some updates. For some background to patchy, see http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy FWIW, it's normally me that runs patchy-staging, not David. I know he does run it when needed, but I have been running it generally twice a day for the last few weeks. My routine is to check when I get up and if there's a difference between staging and master, I boot my build machine and run patchy over breakfast. Ditto early evening. So far, it has required zero intervention from me, which is good if it's a breakfast run - I wouldn't normally have the time to investigate problems then. Setting it up was completely painless. The only reason I don't run it more often is (a) it doesn't seem needed - 12 hours to migrate to master doesn't seem excessive; (b) I can't run it most days, with college and CAB; and (c) I don't want to leave that machine running unattended. It takes 17 minutes to run on the fast box. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? GrahamDavid, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these questions wouldn't have been asked. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear. Making vague claims of it should be more user-friendly does not help. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
Graham, 2012/3/3 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Yes. GrahamDavid, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these questions wouldn't have been asked. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear. Making vague claims of it should be more user-friendly does not help. I guess in my case it just wasn't clear to me if we can run one without the other 'all the time' (i.e. as I have now found out what Phil does), and that the two scripts were not dependent (i.e. I can only run one when the other has run or I should run the other when the other has run). Phil and David have just made that more clearer to me. Also should I be running both or would it better to just run one and (for instance) let someone else 'merge'. That was all. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
- Original Message - From: James pkx1...@gmail.com To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: Re: regular patchy staging Graham, 2012/3/3 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, James pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Yes. GrahamDavid, when i said that i'd like to make Patchy more user-friendly i meant to make it so straightforward that these questions wouldn't have been asked. Have you read http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ? Janek, tell me exactly which step in that process is unclear. Making vague claims of it should be more user-friendly does not help. I guess in my case it just wasn't clear to me if we can run one without the other 'all the time' (i.e. as I have now found out what Phil does), and that the two scripts were not dependent (i.e. I can only run one when the other has run or I should run the other when the other has run). Phil and David have just made that more clearer to me. Also should I be running both or would it better to just run one and (for instance) let someone else 'merge'. That was all. James I'd be happy if you could take over merge, since I'd assume you'd leave the machine on and could thus run it with a cron job and get email notifications of any problems as well as providing more frequent updates. It may make sense to offer to David to take over test - this is very similar to what you had been doing with your manual patch testing. If I were running both, I think I'd run them as separate users, to avoid problems with one affecting the git repo of build directory of another. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: Any advance on having a regular patchy staging compile? like, every 6 hours or something? Currently it's David who is running Patchy (i am amazed by his involvement), and he lacks processing power to do this more often. I think Patchy could be improved a bit to be more user-friendly (that's just my personal opinion), thus allowing James (for example) to run it more easily. I want to get back to work on Patchy, but i'm totally buried under GSoC and other things; i cannot magically multiply my time despite my sincere wishes to the contrary :( Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: regular patchy staging
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: Any advance on having a regular patchy staging compile? like, every 6 hours or something? Currently it's David who is running Patchy (i am amazed by his involvement), and he lacks processing power to do this more often. I think Patchy could be improved a bit to be more user-friendly (that's just my personal opinion), thus allowing James (for example) to run it more easily. Regular staging patchy needs no hand-holding. Due to DOC building, it takes about 1h40 on my machine (see the finishing times): -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak 152 2012-03-02 16:52 log-staging-autogen.sh.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak7045 2012-03-02 16:52 log-staging-configure.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak 51889 2012-03-02 16:53 log-staging-nice-make-clean--j3.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak 2277119 2012-03-02 16:57 log-staging-nice-make--j3.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak 197015 2012-03-02 17:10 log-staging-nice-make-test--j3.txt drwxrwxr-x 22 dak dak4096 2012-03-02 18:31 build -rw-rw-r-- 1 dak dak 590019 2012-03-02 18:32 log-staging-nice-make-doc--j3.txt -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
