Phil Holmes-2 wrote > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Kastrup" <
> dak@ > > > To: "Federico Bruni" < > fedelogy@ > > > Cc: "Eluze" < > eluzew@ > >; "lilypond-devel" < > lilypond-devel@ > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:07 PM > Subject: Re: verification and bulk edit [Re: Unverified issues?] > > >> Federico Bruni < > fedelogy@ > > writes: >> >>> 2013/9/29 Eluze < > eluzew@ > > >>> >>>> >> Traditionally Eluze works through these on a Monday. Let's check >>>> the >>>> >> situation on Tuesday. >>>> > >>>> > Ah, ok. >>>> >>>> I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member >>>> allowed >>>> to do it!) >>> >>> >>> I've cleared some of them, you won't have to work too much tomorrow :-) >>> This is a boring task and it should be shared as possible between all >>> bug >>> squad members. >>> >>> Also, I'm thinking about a way of making it easier. >>> Most of the times we have only to check if the committish pasted by the >>> developer is really in master. If we add a field "Committish" (where the >>> developer should paste the committish), then the bug squad can show the >>> column Committish and work on the list page instead of having to open >>> each >>> issue. >>> Then we copy&paste each committish in gitk and when we have verified all >>> of >>> them we can use the bulk edit to mark all the issues as Verified in one >>> shot (never tried but I hope it works). >>> >>> What do you think about it? >> >> It matches the theory. In practice, I've been startled quite a few >> times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present >> but also reported back when it turned out that the claimed functionality >> did not actually accompany the commit. >> >> The verification you spell out here could be done by a web crawler and >> would be done in seconds. The verification from the bug squad appears >> to do a more thorough job on average. >> >> When changing the issue tracker, you get a field for specifying what the >> tracker should do next after changing the current issue. If you use "go >> to next issue", it will move to the next issue matching the search. >> That seems rather efficient, and it would appear that the bug squad >> reading the issue description and possibly more leads to an improvement >> of the results. >> >> The question is whether we can significantly improve the efficiency >> without sacrificing more quality than desirable. >> >> -- >> David Kastrup > > > Graham and I used to debate this. His view was that all that is required > of > Bug Squad members is to verify that a claimed fix was committed. This > would > lend itself well to autoverification, should someone have the time to > write > an autoverify-bot. I would live with that for Issues marked as something > like "Patch-pushed". I do think that claimed fixes to real bugs should > have > a tiny example, and the bug squad should confirm that the tiny example no > longer fails. This could argue for a more rigorous approach to bug > acceptance: no example, no report. that would make our life more pictoral! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/verification-and-bulk-edit-Re-Unverified-issues-tp151595p151614.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
