On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:24:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > > > Patch-waiting: Patch is blocked, but still needs review > > I would have just kept it at at "Patch-new" until the block was gone.
no, because I'm obsessive about having work done by completely autonomous scripts with no human intervention. The past few months have reinforced this for me: sometimes we just have a ton of bad luck and lots of regular developers drop out or vastly scale back their activities. Patch-new should be handled with a minimum of fuss. That means automatically testing each one, automatically rejecting if any automatic tests can reliably determine that it's bad patch (i.e. failure to compile either binary or test output), and then waiting for a human to glance a regtests and then press a button saying "sure, they look plausible". There's no way to automate the review stage (or now the countdown stage, or waiting stage), so we'll park stuff there. NB: the creation of a countdown can *also* be done automatically, based on the available patches for review, which is why I didn't want to leave it as just Patch-review. hmm, I think I may have just convinced myself that we *did* need another label. sometime in Dec, I'll make a table of everything we want to express for patches, and we'll see what the combinatorics tell us. Pigeonhole principle, here I come! (my professor for first-year discrete mathematics loved the pigeonhole principle, and often began lectures with a slide showing a pigeon) - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
