On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:38:51AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote: > every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
That's definitely overkill! What if I post a comment saying "yes, this patch definitely looks bad"? > IMHO all issues that have not changed since 2 months and have > Patch-needs_work should be labeled Patch-abandoned, could we add a > script for this? We could, but I think there's a difference between people who work slow/infrequently vs. abandoned patches. I mean, Mike's skyline patch and Ian's guile 2.0 work have probably both seen periods of not being changed for 2 months, but both are still being worked on. I don't think that we should automatically declare patches to be abandoned. > > That said, I don't think that Grenouille should be testing > > Patch-needs_work. > > I do, because from time to time false negatives happen, i.e. > Patch-needs_work might be set unproperly, In that case, I would expect the patch author (who should be much more familiar with his work than any automated script) to manually set it to Patch-new. Failing that, any other developer could set patch-new to trigger a new test if the discussion suggests that the previous test results are not correct. > I intially added Patch-countdown to test more patches that anyway had > not seen regtests comparison put online before, and could remove it now, > but I'd like to keep looking for Patch-review, to bring the plus of > putting regtests comparison online. Sure, but again I think that we can/should rely on humans manually saying "let's get a new set of test results for this". - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
