Re: regular patchy staging

[James]

Hello,

On 3 March 2012 09:03, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>

OK thanks, I'll focus on that one.

-- 
--

James