lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of mak


From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak.
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:21:15 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:04:12PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 12.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > Failing that, any other developer could set
> > patch-new to trigger a new test if the discussion suggests that
> > the previous test results are not correct.
> 
> It's not the problem of triggering a new test, it's the problem of
> making test results available to all eyes, regardless of any human
> judgement.  As James uploads tests results increasingly often, and tests
> run more reliably on his computer than on Grenouille, I consider giving
> SFTP access on Grenouille to Patchy regular testers so they can upload
> tests results, and add a hook in Patchy to do this seamlessly.

That sounds good to me!  If we treat Grenouille more like a web
server than a workhorse, then I think it'll go smoother.  People
like James can build new test results quite quickly, have them
automatically uploaded to Grenouille, and Grenouille can then
server them to reviewers.  That bypasses the dyndns questions,
while still allowing faster (and distributed!) generation of test
results.

> > Sure, but again I think that we can/should rely on humans manually
> > saying "let's get a new set of test results for this".
> 
> Again, the problem is not getting a new set of test results, but getting
> one set of test results that is available online.

Yes.

> What about creating a
> new label category like Patchtest={todo,pass,fail}, where "todo"
> would be set either when uploading a new patch or requesting a
> new tests run, "pass" and "fail" would be set only if a
> regtest-comparison is put online (and Grenouille would not set
> "fail" until we have fixed the cause of its repeated crashes),
> which could be set with little or no human intervention?

I still think that this can be handled by the existing Patch-new
system.  Just allow Grenouille to accept uploads, and forbid
Patchy test-patches from changing the status to Patch-review
unless it has successfully uploaded to Grenouille.

- Graham



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]