"Ian Hulin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
OK, here's the question, what's better for our
development/bug-tracking/project management process - add a new
tracker for each of the two modules and mark them as blocking 1686, or
put up patch-sets for each of these as part of Issue 1686, and then
when they've been reviewed, counted down and pushed, put up the final
changes to lily.scm and main.cc, and when this one is reviewed,
counted down and pushed, then we can verify the issue.
By the way, the criteria for verifying all of these patches is that
they do no harm when running the LilyPond regression tests using Guile
1.8.
I've recently started an aversion to multiple issues. The problem is that
it's a Bug Squad role to mark them as verified and we're now over-run with
issues just tracking patches. As usual, I'm sure Graham won't agree with
me, but I think Squadders should actually check that the patch works if we
mark the issue as verified. Lots of issues - lots of checking. My personal
preference would be to keep the single issue, with multiple patches.
If not this, there should be clear instructions at the top of the issue on
how to verify. "Is 1686 verified? Then verify this one."
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
