On 12-04-02 04:18 PM, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
Well, I must say that I don't understand what I'm expected to
do. Could you please explain me once more and say also what
"Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary"
means? Especially "add issue *nbr* to summary".
Łukasz
On 2 April 2012 03:53, Colin Campbell <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The items below are the result of a search on Rietveld for open
items associated with the lilypond trunk. In some cases, the
tracker item has been closed, so the Rietveld item should also be
closed. In others, work continues but it would be good to
cross-reference the tracker item in the Rietveld item summary or
title.
5862052 2310 Milimetr88 Corrected style of comments
Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary
Good to meet you, Łukasz, at least by email!
Our patch tracking system has two parts: one part is hosted on the
Rietveld site, at codereview.appspot.com. The code review process allows
us to use special tools, such as diff comparisons, to encourage and
record discussion among developers regarding a proposed patch. The
Rietveld tool assigns an issue number when a patch is first created, and
later changes are attached as changes to the original. Your first upload
created issue 5862502 on Rietveld. After some discussion, and possibly a
glitch in using git-cl, a new issue, number 5975054, got created on
Rietveld, leaving the older one still open. As you are the owner, and if
I am correct that the new one replaces the first, that you should go
onto Rietveld and update 5862502 to say it was replaced by 5975054, then
mark 5862052 "closed".
The second part of my request was to go to 5975054 and update either the
title or the summary to mention Issue 2310. That is because the Reitveld
tool handles code patches well, but cannot track any other kind of
issue, such as requests for changes, bug reports and other things which
might not lead to code patches. The issue tracker on
code.google.com/lilypond has a very usable interface, and works well for
tracking various kinds of issues and their status. It, too, assigns a
number when an issue is created, usually by the Bug Squad in response to
a bug report. Developers also create issues, to announce enhancements
for example, and this is how Janek created issue 2310, to document the
work you and he are doing.
Tools which we have written for the purpose are aware of the two
unconnected sources of information about patches and have been modified
to allow you to refer to an existing issue number (2310) when uploading
a patch to Rietveld (5975054), but this only handles one side of the
connection: in the Google issue, the Rietveld issue number is added, but
the only way to get the connection from Rietveld, at least at the moment
and as far as I understand it, is to ask the developer to refer to the
Google tracker number in the title or summary of the issue. You might,
for example, simply change the title of 5975054 to " T2310 Corrected
comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two" and it
would be clear at a glance where the rest of the conversation can be found.
I hope that rather lengthy explanation helps, Łukasz, and do forgive my
error in my first email, referring to 5975074 when it should have been
5975054!
Cheers,
Colin the Elder
--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
