@menu
* Meta-policy for this document::
* Meisters::
+* Patchy::
* Administrative mailing list::
* Grand Organization Project (GOP)::
* Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)::
@end itemize
+@node Patchy
+@section Patchy
+
+@subheading Introduction
+
+Patchy is a set of Python scripts to automate two administrative
+tasks:
+
+@itemize
+@item
+@code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py}: checks that new commits in
+@code{staging} can compile the regtests and documentation before
+merging @code{staging} into @code{master}.
+
+(completely automatic)
+
+@item
+@code{test-patches.py}: checks that patches apply to git master,
+compile, and lets a human check that there are no big unintended
+changes to the regtests.
+
+(requires some human input)
+
+@end itemize
+
+@subheading Installing patchy
+
+To install patchy, you should run do the following:
+
+@enumerate
+@item
+Create a new user on your box to to run patchy; this is a security
+step for your own protection. It is recommended that this should
+not be an administrator. New users are created from System;
+Administration; Users and Groups.
+
+@item
+Get the patchy scripts from
+@example
+https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/
+@end example
+Patchy is in the @file{patches/} directory.
+
+@item
+Put the scripts in a sensible place on your system
+
+@item
+Create a new git repository with
+@example
+git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
+@end example
+This will create a directory called lilypond with the repo in it.
+Make sure it's where you want it and name it lilypond-git
+(assuming you want to follow the standard naming conventions).
+
+@item
+Create an environment variable called LILYPOND_GIT and make it
+equal to the location of your new git repo. You can do this by
+editing @file{$HOME/.profile} and adding the line:
+@example
+export LILYPOND_GIT=~/lilypond-git
+@end example
+then logging out and in.
+
+@item
+Run patchy once to set up config files. Cancel this build
+(ctrl-c).
+
+@item
+Edit @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to provide working
+directories for your build directory, your results directory,
+compiler options and notification method. If you don't want to
+use email notification, then delete everything after
+@code{smtp_command:}.
+
+@item
+Ensure that your new user has git push access. Follow the
+instructions in the CG at @ref{Commit access}. Do not set
+password protection for the key - if you do you will not be able
+to run patchy unattended.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@subheading lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+
+lilypond-patchy-staging.py is run with
+@example
+python lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+@end example
+Not much appears to happen except you can see a lot of CPU gets
+used if you open System Monitor. There's not much point running
+@code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} unless there something in
+staging to be merged to master, however, if there's nothing in
+staging then the script won't waste resources by compiling
+anything.
+
+The script fetches the current patches in staging and runs
+@code{make}, @code{make test} and @code{make doc} to ensure that all of
+these complete error-free. If you have set patchy up to use email,
+it emails its results to you. If you haven't, then you can view
+them in a logfile. It also merges staging into master.
+
+@subheading test-patches.py
+test-patches prepares a regtest comparison for a human to quickly
+glance at, to determine if the patch is ready for a review. After
+looking at the comparison (or the lack of a comparison in the case
+of problems), run @code{accept-patch.py} or
+@code{reject-patch.py}.
+
+Once a patch has gotten a "LGTM" from Patchy, it should be
+reviewed by relevant developers, and if it passes this, it can be
+considered for countdown (see @ref{Commits and patches}) and
+pushing to staging (see @ref{Pushing to staging}).
+
+
@node Administrative mailing list
@section Administrative mailing list
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-@item @strong{Future release policy}:
-(how) should we change any policies pertaining to releases? Should
-an undocumented new feature count as release-blocking?
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 15 hours)
-
-@item @strong{lilypond-hackers mailing list}:
-Should we have a private mailing list for senior developers? If
-so, who should be on it?
-
-(prep: 2 hours+3 weeks. discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Hackers B}:
-
-
-@item @strong{Git repository(s)}:
-We currently have a web/ branch in our main repo; this seems
-misleading to new developers. More generally, should we have
-branches that aren't related to the master? i.e. should we
-restrict a git branch to code which is an actual "branch" of
-development? Also, some of our code (notably the windows and osx
-lilypad) isn't in a git repository at all.
-We can add new repositories very easily; should make repositories
-like
-@example
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/gub.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/lilypad.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/misc.git
-@end example
-? More information here:
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=980}
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Roadmap of future development}:
-Many projects have a roadmap of planned (or desired) future work.
-Should we use one? If so, what should go on it, bearing in mind
-our volunteer status? Is there any way of having a roadmap that
-isn't vaporware?
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
-
@item @strong{Official links to other organizations?}:
There's something called the "software freedom conservancy", and
in general, there's a bunch of "umbrella organizations". Joining
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
-@item @strong{Mailing lists}:
-We currently have a mix of official GNU mailing lists and lilynet
-lists. Is there a strong rationale for having separate mailing
-list servers? Why not pick one place, and put all our lists there?
-(or at least, all "permanent" lists?)
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
-
@item @strong{Issue tracking with google code}:
We use the google issue tracker, but this means that we are
relying on a commercial entity for a large part of our
(prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
-@item @strong{Subdomains of *.lilypond.org}:
-Unless Jan has a really weird DNS hosting setup, there are no
-technical barriers to having names like lsr.lilypond.org,
-frog.lilypond.org, or news.lilypond.org. Is this something that we
-want to do?
-
-(prep: 1 hours+2 weeks. discuss: 5 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Authorship in source files}:
-Our documentation currently does not attempt to track individual
-authors of each file, while our source code makes a confused and
-jumbled attempt to track this. A number of guidelines for F/OSS
-projects explicitly recommends _not_ tracking this in individual
-files, since the code repository will track that for you.
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
-
@item @strong{Clarity for sponsorships}:
We currently do not advertize bounties and sponsorships on the
webpage. How much advertising do we want, and what type?
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-@item @strong{Separate branches for active development}:
-it might be good to have @emph{everybody} working on separate
-branches. This complicates the git setup, but with sufficient
-logic in lily-git.tcl, we can probably make it transparent to
-newbies. However, we'd need a reliable person to handle all the
-required merging and stuff.
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{When do we add regtests?}:
-There is a discrepancy between our stated policy on adding
-regtests, and our actual practice in handling bugs and patches.
-Clarify.
-
-There is also a wider question how to organize the regtests, such
-as where to put interesting-console-output regtests, including
-stuff like lilypond-book and midi2ly in a sensible manner, and
-possibly including regtests for currently-broken functionality.
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
-
@item @strong{code readability}:
"Our aim when producing source code for Lilypond in whatever
language is that it should be totally comprehensible to a
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff