Re: Fw: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2547 in lilypond: Fix documentation of making footnotes work via tweak.

[Trevor Daniels]

John Mandereau wrote Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:38 AM

> There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary%20Modified
> 
> With the query Patchy currently uses in a server setup
> 
> Patch=new,review,needs_work,countdown status:New,Accepted,Started 
> modified-after:today-30
> every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.

It's rather silly to have needs_work in this list.  It's likely there
will be many posts discussing what to do before the actual patch
is changed.  Why keep testing the same patch?  When a new
patch is posted with git-cl the status changes to new - that's
when a further test is needed.  I have enough mails to process
without having to check and discard ones informing me an old
patch for an issue I'm discussing has just been tested yet again.
  
> IMHO all issues that have not changed since 2 months and have
> Patch-needs_work should be labeled Patch-abandoned, could we add a
> script for this?

No.  They need to be handled on an individual basis.  Maybe the
bud-quad might be willing to undertake this.
 
Trevor