Re: regular patchy staging

[David Kastrup]

James <address@hidden> writes:

> I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had
> been running patchy so figured it was now covered

There is staging-patchy.  It does not require manual work, just
processing power, but lots of that.  It is not bothered if people run it
in parallel (the worst that happens is that cycles are wasted).

I still run it occasionally, and it is rather a holdup on my setup.

Then there is test-patchy.  It takes less processing power, but the
results need to be evaluated manually and an appropriate comment made.
It does not matter if people run it in parallel, but it is a bit of a
nuisance if the manual commenting overlaps.

staging-patchy and test-patchy currently use the same testing directory
(why?), so it will lead to problems if both are run on the same machine
at the same time.

> I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts.
>
> Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear
> on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against
> current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with
> master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should
> I just be doing one of them?

lilypond-patchy-staging (?) is the more important one since it takes
more processing power and less manual intervention.

-- 
David Kastrup