-is testing them, Colin is selecting them for countdowns, and
-Patchy is merging from staging to master. In the coming weeks,
-these tasks will be more and more automated.
-@end ignore
-
-@subheading Patch cycle
-
-@itemize
-
-@item
-Patches get added to the tracker and to Rietveld by the @qq{git-cl} tool, with
-a status of @qq{patch-new}.
-
-@item
-The automated tester, Patchy, verifies that the patch can be applied
-to current master. By default, it checks that the patch allows @code{make}
-and @code{make test} to complete successfully. It can also be configured to
-check that @code{make doc} is successful. If it passes, Patchy changes the
-status to @qq{patch-review} and emails the developer list. If the patch
-fails, Patchy sets it to @qq{patch-needs_work} and notifies the developer list.
-
-@item
-The Patch Meister reviews the tracker periodically, to list patches
-which have been on review for at least 24 hours. The list is found at
-
-@smallexample
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch%20patch=review&sort=modified+patch&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Owner%20Patch%20Summary%20Modified}
-@end smallexample
-
-@item
-For each patch, the Handler reviews any discussion on the tracker
-and on Rietveld, to determine whether the patch can go forward. If
-there is any indication that a developer thinks the patch is not
-ready, the Handler marks it @qq{patch-needs_work} and makes a comment
-regarding the reason, referring to the Rietveld item if needed.
-
-@item
-Patches with explicit approval, or at least no negative comment, can
-be updated to @qq{patch-countdown}. When saving the tracker item,
-clear the @qq{send email} box to prevent sending notification for
-each patch.
-
-@item
-The Patch Meister sends an email to the developer list, with a fixed
-subject line, to enable filtering by email clients:
-
-@example
-PATCH: Countdown to 20130113
-@end example
-
-The text of the email sets the deadline for this countdown batch. At
-present, batches are done on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday evenings.
-
-The body of the email lists the patches grouped by patch type, and for
-each patch, shows the tracker issue number and title, with a link to
-the Rietveld item. Copying the information from the website and pasting
-into the email gives a hyperlinked version of the information.
-
-@smallexample
-
-For 20:00 MST Tuesday January 8:
-
-Crash:
- Issue 2990: \RemoveEmptyStaves in StaffGroup context crashes - R 7069044
-
-Defect:
- Issue 677: \score markup confuses paper settings - R 7028045
- Issue 3050: displayLilyMusic produced erroneous code for rightHandFinger arguments - R 7032045
-
-Documentation:
- Issue 2952: Upgrade documentation of \once - R 7031053
- Issue 3044: Dual license the files under mf/ using OFL. - R 6970046
- Issue 3084: [DOC]Add "Known issue" in NR 1.2.1 about Scaling durations with rational numbers - R 7071044
-
-Enhancement:
- Issue 3061: make \articulate handle colon-type tremolos - R 7033045
- Issue 3082: Patch: Let ChordNameVoice use the same performers as Voice - R 7054043
- Issue 3083: Patch: Chord change detection in fretboards should depend on placements, not notes - R 7062043
- Issue 2983: assertion failed with \glissando - R 6625078
-
-
-Cheers,
-Colin
-
-@end smallexample
-
-@item
-On the scheduled countdown day, the Patch Meister reviews the
-previous list of patches on countdown, with the same procedure and
-criteria as before. Patches with no controversy can be set to
-@qq{patch-push} with a courtesy message added to the comment block.
-
-@item
-Roughly at six month intervals, the Patch Meister can list the
-patches which have been set to @qq{patch-needs-work} and send the
-results to the developer list for review. In most cases, these
-patches should be marked @qq{patch-abandoned} but this should come
-from the developer if possible.
-
-@item
-As in most organisations of unpaid volunteers, fixed procedures are
-useful in as much as they get the job done. In our community, there
-is room for senior developers to bypass normal patch handling flows,
-particularly now that the testing of patches is largely automated.
-Similarly, the minimum age of 24 hours can reasonably be waived if
-the patch is minor and from an experienced developer.
-
-
-@end itemize
-
-@ignore
-There is a single Patch Meister, and a number of Patch Helpers
-(rename this?). The list of known patches awaiting review is:
-
-@example
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch&sort=patch}
-@end example
-
-
-@subheading Helpers: adding patches
-
-The primary duty is to add patches to the google tracker; we have
-a bad track record of losing patches in email. Patches generally
-come to the @code{lilypond-devel} mailing list, but are sometimes
-sent to @code{bug-lilypond}, @code{lilypond-users}, or
-@code{frogs} mailing list instead.
-
-@itemize
-@item
-Unless a patch is clearly in response to an existing issue, add a
-new issue with the @code{Patch-new} label and a link to the patch
-(either on the mailing list archives or the codereview url).
-
-Issue numbers are cheap; losing developers because they got fed up
-with us losing their hard work is expensive.
-
-@end ignore
-@c if we enter patches immediately, I don't think this is relevant.
-@ignore
-@item
-Before adding a patch-reminder issue, do a quick check to see if
-it was pushed without sending any email. This can be checked for
-searching for relevant terms (from the patch subject or commit
-message) on the webgit page:
-
-@example
-@uref{http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git}
-@end example
-@end ignore
-@ignore
-
-@item
-If the patch is clearly in response to an existing issue, then
-update that issue with the @code{Patch-new} label and a link to
-the patch (either on the mailing list archives or the codereview
-url).
-
-@item
-After adding the issue, please send a response email to the same
-group(s) that the initial patch was sent to.
-
-If the initial email was sent to multiple mailing lists (such as
-both @code{bugs} and @code{devel}), then reply to all those
-mailing lists as well. The email should contain a link to the
-issue you just added.
-
-@end itemize
-
-@subheading Helpers: @code{Patch-review} label
-
-The secondary duty is to do make sure that every issue in the
-tracker with a @code{Patch-review} label has passed these
-@qq{obvious} tests:
-
-@itemize
-@item
-Applies automatically to git master.
-
-It's ok to have offsets, but not conflicts.
-
-@item
-Regtest comparison looks ok; no unexpected changes.
-
-@item
-Descriptive subject line.
-
-Avoid subjects like @qq{fixes 123}; instead write @qq{Doc: discuss
-stacking-dir for BassFigureAlignment (fix 123)}.
-
-@item
-Compiles docs from scratch. Only check this if you have reason to
-suspect it might not work.
-
-@item
-(maybe)
-
-Check code indentation and style. This should be easier post-GOP
-when we have a better-defined code style.
-
-@end itemize
-
-
-@subheading Patch Meister
-
-The Patch Meister will:
-
-@itemize
-
-@item
-send @qq{countdown} emails to
-@code{lilypond-devel} when patches appear to be ready.
-
-@item
-send general requests to review patches, or even nasty requests to
-review patches.
-
-@item
-downgrade patches from @code{Patch-review} to
-@code{Patch-needs_work} as appropriate.
-
-@item
-downgrade patches from @code{Patch-needs_work} to
-@code{Patch-abandoned} if no actions have been taken in four
-weeks.
-
-@end itemize
-
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff