On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Mike recently posted a patch with the comment "don't run the
> regtests on this; this patch is just a proof-of-concept" (or
> something like that). I think this is a great idea; let's do more
> of it! If a patch is not explicitly called "proof of concept",
> then we should assume that the patch is for reals.
>
I completely second this and would like to apologize for wasting anyone's time
with regtests. Anytime someone runs regtests for me, it's very helpful (I am
having trouble rebuilding lily from a blank tarball, so I can't get a separate
regtest branch up and running). However, I consider it my full responsibility
to run regtests once I get around to them. However however, as regtests tie up
my development branch, and as I am often changing the source in ways that would
make Neil blush to make my music look like I want it to look, I often want to
get a patch out to the list a couple days before I can run it through the
regtests just to see what people think.
I used to belabor under the assumption that people ran regtests if they saw
nothing obviously wrong but wanted to test some things out: I now see that
people run them as a courtesy without the intention of playing with the patch.
As this is the case, I will adopt Graham's suggestion for all future work. I'd
even go one step further in requesting that other people run regtests only if
they are asked for, but I don't know if this is problematic for other
individuals.
To summarize: this is a great idea, thanks to James & co for running regtests
for me (it is never a wasted effort, as it always gives me very valuable
information), and I'll certainly be using Graham's proposed policy in the
future.
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
