Re: Email from Phil's patchy

[David Kastrup]

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 29.07.2012 10:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
>
>> Now it is true that we probably did not have a formal discussion of
>> this in any rate, and you are probably quite keeping with some sort
>> of de-facto standard and are in the unlucky position of standing next
>> when I am waking up to some problem wildly thrashing my arms.
>>
>> Sorry for that.
> No problem. I was a bit disappointed that this patch being into
> staging has to be reworked, but I assumed that "make doc"
> is covered within the "make test-redo; make check" cycle,
> and I was proven wrong.

"make doc" is really expensive.  And the staging branch is our ultimate
safety net (more often than not, patches gone through testing and review
need rebasing before getting pushed, and we don't start a new
test-patchy for that), intended to catch unexpected kinds of problem.

Which this, in a way, was.

> Meanwhile, "make doc" succeded. I had to insert a
> check for glyph = #f in bar-line::compound-barline, too,
> which was not covered before.

Well, it was more or less coincidence that made that problem turn up
(which should really have been discussed and resolved in review in a
perfect world), but if we are handed on a platter the chance to improve
a previous choice including an example of why that would be a good idea,
it would be a shame to waste it.

-- 
David Kastrup