Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - as ofSeptember 2015

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:34 PM

> James Lowe  writes:
> 
>> On 20/09/15 22:52, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>>> On 20.09.2015 23:10, James Lowe wrote:

 My thinking is like this; I pick an issue to work on, I do some stuff,
 make a patch, have a discussion, then get bored and go silent.

 The issue is now patch_abandoned.

 What is the benefit of leaving this label (or even having it in the
 first place)
>>> 
>>> One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this
>>> issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True,
>>> anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire
>>> discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round:
>>> What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a
>>> Patch:abandoned does?
>>
>> Extra cruft that serves no purpose as I can see.
>>
>> We have waiting/needs_work already.
> 
> Both of those indicate that the Patch is not (yet?) abandoned.

The key difference is one of ownership.  The LP developers have
a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development
of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else.  Patch 
waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more 
work, so other devs let it ride.  Patch abandoned means the previous 
dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the 
ownership.  Well, at least that's my understanding.

Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - as ofSeptember 2015

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels"  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:34 PM
>
>> James Lowe  writes:
>> 
>>> On 20/09/15 22:52, Simon Albrecht wrote:
 On 20.09.2015 23:10, James Lowe wrote:
>
> My thinking is like this; I pick an issue to work on, I do some stuff,
> make a patch, have a discussion, then get bored and go silent.
>
> The issue is now patch_abandoned.
>
> What is the benefit of leaving this label (or even having it in the
> first place)
 
 One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this
 issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True,
 anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire
 discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round:
 What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a
 Patch:abandoned does?
>>>
>>> Extra cruft that serves no purpose as I can see.
>>>
>>> We have waiting/needs_work already.
>> 
>> Both of those indicate that the Patch is not (yet?) abandoned.
>
> The key difference is one of ownership.  The LP developers have
> a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development
> of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else.  Patch 
> waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more 
> work, so other devs let it ride.  Patch abandoned means the previous 
> dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the 
> ownership.  Well, at least that's my understanding.

No, that's not entirely related.  I may give up on a particular approach
to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular patch, but still
want to cook up a different patch or solve the problem in the context of
another issue.  Patch abandoned just means that the latest proposed
patch is not going to be pursued further, not that the issue owner has
given up on a particular problem altogether.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Tracking Issue activity on Allura at SF

[Trevor Daniels]

Devs and Bug Squad:

If you haven't yet signed up to Allura at SourceForge you may be missing 
discussions on Issues and finding it difficult to keep up with changes to the 
Issues DB (there are already around 40 new issues and many more comments and 
changes since we moved from GC a month ago).  As an alternative you can track 
changes to the Issues DB on this (advert-free!) page: 
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/activity
without needing to create an account and without needing to sign up for emails. 
 By clicking on "Comment" you can go straight to the referenced comment or by 
clicking on the Ticket number you can see all the discussion posts.

Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Doc: Usage - Updated 'Running LilyPond' intros (issue 261240043 by pkx1...@gmail.com)

[tdanielsmusic]

You don't appear to have changed the menus in the translations, but I
would strongly recommend leaving all the translations to the translators
- unless you can translate the modified headings into Czech and
Japanese.


https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely
File Documentation/usage/running.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#newcode32
Documentation/usage/running.itely:32: convenient and simple-to-use GUI.
These still require that LilyPond is
"... require LilyPond to be installed ..." would be better.

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#newcode54
Documentation/usage/running.itely:54: the section @q{Running on the
command-line} from here; @rweb{Windows}.
From here: (should be a colon).  Same in following para.

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - asofSeptember 2015

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 21, 2015 10:28 AM


> "Trevor Daniels"  writes:
> 
>> We usually use Patch needs_work to cover the situation where the
>> current patch is inadequate and further work is in progress.  I'd
>> rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use of this limited
>> set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, "I've given
>> up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for grabs
>> for someone else to improve on it."
> 
> That's issue ownership.  And the difference between "Started" and
> "Accepted".

OK, I can accept that.  So, to elaborate a little on James' post,
the point of which is to enable some old inactive issues/patches 
to be cleared up, in the event of inaction for 6 months (say):

  Status:Started -> Status:Accepted
  Owner -> ""
  Patch: needs_work -> Patch:abandoned

So the final state of an issue which has been inactive for more
than 6 months reverts to "Accepted" with no Owner, and the final 
state of the latest associated patch reverts to "abandoned" or 
remains "waiting", and in the latter case this should be qualified 
by the Needs field.  That makes it clear the issue is free to be
picked up by someone else, either by starting from scratch or
continuing to develop an earlier abandoned patch.

Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - as of September 2015

[Simon Albrecht]

On 21.09.2015 00:18, James Lowe wrote:


The 'new' status was for those issues that had been added by random Joes
(not members of the bug squad) and then it was changed to 'Accepted'
once the issue was checked - else it would be marked invalid or
duplicate (or even merged). If we're going to keep 'blank' then we could
even do way with the 'new' status.


   

True, I did myself make some thoughts on merging those two fields: i.e.
replacing Status:Started by Status:Patch_new etc. After all,
Status:Fixed would be a fitful successor to Status:Patch_push.

Actually 'Fixed' could be also potentially removed as well and the label
Fixed_X_x_x be used in it's place.


How would that fit into the workflow? IIUC, currently Status:Fixed is 
set by the developer. The bug squad member verifies and then sets 
Status:Verified and Label:Fixed_X_x_x. Label and Status should 
definitely not get mixed up, if you ask me.



So issues have a status of blank/Accepted/Started/Verified


Much in the same vein: An issue should always have a Status. The current 
progression/policy is perfectly sensible.



Patch labels of blank/new/review/countdown/needs_work/waiting
Other Labels - included the documentation/ugly/enhancement etc. but with
the custom label of Fixed_X_x_x as part of that.


Status:Patch_abandoned would mark an issue as ‘suspended’.

Suspended for whom? Either an issue is being worked on or it isn't
(let's forget those in the patch review process, invalids and
duplicates) and we seem to have 'waiting' for that 'suspension' -
although I still have a hard time wondering why 'waiting and needs_work'
can't be merged, but anyway - this is about abandoned.


I’d not limit discussion to that – we should design a coherent, 
functional and clear policy and set of values.



Started != Patch_new, if for instance someone was working their way to a
patch but had to have a conversation with the group or something like
that first.

Do people look at the 'patch_abandoned' issues differently compared to
those that have never been started? I don't know I am not a programmer,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.


I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth the effort of updating all
the DB.

Well that's a different topic - and the mass edit  if it worked
properly, would make that trivial. Ideally we ought to be checking that
the really old ones that show some ugly output or similar still apply
today.

   

I also did some checking of the kind, starting from the oldest issues 
and progressing until 600 (only ‘open’ issues). But this can’t be done 
as a mass edit: each case must be checked individually. Same is for 
abandoned patches: the procedure depends on the specific issue.


Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Doc: Usage - Updated 'Running LilyPond' intros (issue 261240043 by pkx1...@gmail.com)

[pkx166h]

Thanks, I'm still struggling to get this to make doc with the 'ca'
translations (it is only those that seem to break with my changes and I
cannot yet work it out).




https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely
File Documentation/usage/running.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#newcode43
Documentation/usage/running.itely:43: configurable options to be applied
to the output.  LilyPond also comes
On 2015/09/14 15:13:13, pwm wrote:

Since Frescobaldi has an "Engrave (custom)" function which allows the

use of

these command-line options, basically a command-line embedded in a

GUI, maybe

reword this as: "allows configurable options to be applied to the

output."

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/diff/20001/Documentation/usage/running.itely#newcode46
Documentation/usage/running.itely:46: available via the command-line.
On 2015/09/14 15:13:13, pwm wrote:

Since these helper programs are also available in Frescobaldi, maybe

reword this

last bit to something like: "which are available via the

command-line."

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/261240043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - asofSeptember 2015

[James Lowe]

Hello,

On 21/09/15 09:36, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 21, 2015 9:16 AM
> 
> 
>> "Trevor Daniels"  writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:34 PM
>>>
 James Lowe  writes:

> On 20/09/15 22:52, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>> On 20.09.2015 23:10, James Lowe wrote:
>>>
>>> My thinking is like this; I pick an issue to work on, I do some stuff,
>>> make a patch, have a discussion, then get bored and go silent.
>>>
>>> The issue is now patch_abandoned.
>>>
>>> What is the benefit of leaving this label (or even having it in the
>>> first place)
>>
>> One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this
>> issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True,
>> anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire
>> discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round:
>> What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a
>> Patch:abandoned does?
>
> Extra cruft that serves no purpose as I can see.
>
> We have waiting/needs_work already.

 Both of those indicate that the Patch is not (yet?) abandoned.
>>>
>>> The key difference is one of ownership.  The LP developers have
>>> a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development
>>> of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else.  Patch 
>>> waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more 
>>> work, so other devs let it ride.  Patch abandoned means the previous 
>>> dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the 
>>> ownership.  Well, at least that's my understanding.
>>
>> No, that's not entirely related.  I may give up on a particular approach
>> to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular patch, but still
>> want to cook up a different patch or solve the problem in the context of
>> another issue.  Patch abandoned just means that the latest proposed
>> patch is not going to be pursued further, not that the issue owner has
>> given up on a particular problem altogether.
> 
> We don't really have a mechanism to handle multiple patches, so I think
> we can discount that possibility.  We usually use Patch needs_work to
> cover the situation where the current patch is inadequate and further work
> is in progress.  I'd rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use 
> of this limited set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, 
> "I've given up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for 
> grabs for someone else to improve on it."  And I'd suggest an issue should
> be placed in this state by the Bug Squad if no action on it has been apparent
> by the current owner for over 6 months.
> 
> Trevor

But my main point has still not been addressed. While I like Trevor's
suggestion - about the 6 month review - should we not just put the issue
back to as it was if it was 'new', and just put something in the thread
that says words to that effect?

I still think that the casual observers look at 'patch abandoned' 'as
if' it was like an issue had been marked 'invalid', in that it is simply
ignored as an issue where some more work could be done when filtered for.

Maybe that is just me and how I view the issues list, but I still
maintain that if (let's say after 6 months of whatever) nothing has been
worked on the issue then it simply goes back on the 'pile' of 'new'
issues (in that they have all their labels stripped and put back as if
they were just entered). Any devs who then take a look at that issue
will of course see the thread (and the link to the old patch) but at the
same time the issue is not 'tainted' (if that is the right way to think
of it) by patch_abandoned.

So, off the top of my head

Patch-New - > Patch-Reviwe - > some back and forth or some time spent -
> Patch-needs work - > Patch-new -> Patch_review -> more arguing/thought
-> Patch-Needs work -> some more time, loss of the will to live/more
interesting less hard things to work on [insert time limit here] - >
Patch abandoned -> [insert more time here] -> clear issue back to 'as
new' (Label is 'Accepted' patch-abandoned is cleared and the tracker is
updated).

Or something along those lines - personally I still needs-work is
enough. If it needs-work for more than 3/6 months then it is considered
abandoned but the issue is put back new and the 'needs-work' label is
removed.

Perhaps these are just emotive things but 'needs work' is something I
might look at compared to something that was 'abandoned' (gosh if they
abandoned it, it must be really hard or really a lot of work).

I have a relatively set-way of doing things now as Patch Meister (it
seems to work for the group and no one has complained ;) ) so adding
something in the schedule to cycle all the needs_work/abandoned into new
/ no patch status is something that is not that 

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - asofSeptember 2015

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 21, 2015 9:16 AM


> "Trevor Daniels"  writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:34 PM
>>
>>> James Lowe  writes:
>>> 
 On 20/09/15 22:52, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 20.09.2015 23:10, James Lowe wrote:
>>
>> My thinking is like this; I pick an issue to work on, I do some stuff,
>> make a patch, have a discussion, then get bored and go silent.
>>
>> The issue is now patch_abandoned.
>>
>> What is the benefit of leaving this label (or even having it in the
>> first place)
> 
> One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this
> issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True,
> anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire
> discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round:
> What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a
> Patch:abandoned does?

 Extra cruft that serves no purpose as I can see.

 We have waiting/needs_work already.
>>> 
>>> Both of those indicate that the Patch is not (yet?) abandoned.
>>
>> The key difference is one of ownership.  The LP developers have
>> a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development
>> of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else.  Patch 
>> waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more 
>> work, so other devs let it ride.  Patch abandoned means the previous 
>> dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the 
>> ownership.  Well, at least that's my understanding.
> 
> No, that's not entirely related.  I may give up on a particular approach
> to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular patch, but still
> want to cook up a different patch or solve the problem in the context of
> another issue.  Patch abandoned just means that the latest proposed
> patch is not going to be pursued further, not that the issue owner has
> given up on a particular problem altogether.

We don't really have a mechanism to handle multiple patches, so I think
we can discount that possibility.  We usually use Patch needs_work to
cover the situation where the current patch is inadequate and further work
is in progress.  I'd rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use 
of this limited set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, 
"I've given up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for 
grabs for someone else to improve on it."  And I'd suggest an issue should
be placed in this state by the Bug Squad if no action on it has been apparent
by the current owner for over 6 months.

Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - asofSeptember 2015

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels"  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 21, 2015 9:16 AM
>
>> No, that's not entirely related.  I may give up on a particular
>> approach to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular
>> patch, but still want to cook up a different patch or solve the
>> problem in the context of another issue.  Patch abandoned just means
>> that the latest proposed patch is not going to be pursued further,
>> not that the issue owner has given up on a particular problem
>> altogether.
>
> We don't really have a mechanism to handle multiple patches, so I think
> we can discount that possibility.

Sorry, but that just does not match reality.  We have a host of issues
where multiple patches have been proposed.  While we only assign a state
to the latest patch with a reference in a comment, this state has a
number of degrees of freedom independent from that of the issue.

> We usually use Patch needs_work to cover the situation where the
> current patch is inadequate and further work is in progress.  I'd
> rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use of this limited
> set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, "I've given
> up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for grabs
> for someone else to improve on it."

That's issue ownership.  And the difference between "Started" and
"Accepted".

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel