@menu
* Introduction to issues::
+* Bug Squad overview::
+* Bug Squad setup::
* Bug Squad checklists::
* Issue classification::
* Adding issues to the tracker::
+* Patch handling::
* Summary of project status::
-* Finding the cause of a regression::
@end menu
nothing more than a web browser, email, and lilypond.}
@qq{Issues} isn't just a politically-correct term for @qq{bug}.
-We use the same tracker for feature requests and code TODOs, so
-the term @qq{bug} wouldn't be accurate. Despite the difference
-between @qq{issue} and @qq{bug}, we call our team of contributors
-who organize issues the @emph{Bug Squad}.
+We use the same tracker for feature requests, code TODOs and
+patches, so the term @qq{bug} wouldn't be accurate. Despite the
+difference between @qq{issue} and @qq{bug}, we call our team of
+contributors who organize issues the @emph{Bug Squad}.
The Bug Squad is mainly composed of non-programmers -- their job
is to @emph{organize} issues, not solve them. Their duties
report contains enough information for developers, and checking
that a developer's fix actually resolves the problem.
+New volunteers for the Bug Squad should contact the
+@ref{Meisters, Bug Meister}.
+
+@node Bug Squad overview
+@section Bug Squad overview
+
+The Bug Squad are volunteers who progress issue tracking using the
+Google Issue tracker at
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list}
+@end example
+
+Bug Squad members have 2 primary responsiblities:
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Monitoring the LilyPond Bugs mailing list and adding to the
+tracker any new issues reported there.
+
+@item
+Verifying issues that are claimed fixed by a developer, to ensure
+that the fix works, and is actually in the code base.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+It's also part of the Bug Squad's responsibility to check that
+the Regression Tests don't show up any problems in the latest
+release. The Bug Meister currently does this.
+
+All of this is explained in more detail in the following sections.
+
+@node Bug Squad setup
+@section Bug Squad setup
+
+We highly recommend that you configure your email to use effective
+sorting; this can reduce your workload @emph{immensely}. The
+email folders names were chosen specifically to make them work if
+you sort your folders alphabetically.
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Read every section of this chapter, @ref{Issues}.
+
+@item
+If you do not have one already, create a gmail account and send
+the email address to the @ref{Meisters, Bug Meister}.
+
+@item
+Subscribe your gmail account to @code{bug-lilypond}.
+
+@item
+Configure your google code account:
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Wait until your gmail account is listed in:
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/people/list}
+@end example
+
+@item
+Sign in to google code by clicking in the top-right corner of:
+
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list}
+@end example
+
+You cannot log on if you have Google Sharing enabled
+@uref{http://www.googlesharing.net/}.
+
+@item
+Go to your @qq{Profile}, and select @qq{Settings}.
+
+@item
+Scroll down to @qq{Issue change notification}, and make sure that
+you have @emph{selected} @qq{If I starred the issue}.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@item
+Configure your email client:
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Any email sent with your gmail address in the @code{To:} or
+@code{CC:} fields should go to a @code{bug-answers} folder.
+
+When setting up your filtering rules, be aware that Google Code
+might use different versions of your email address, such as ones
+ending in @code{@@googlemail.com} or @code{@@gmail.com}.
+
+@item
+Any other email either from, or CC'd to,
+
+@example
+lilypond@@googlecode.com
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+should go into a separate @code{bug-ignore} folder. Alternately,
+you may automatically delete these emails.
+
+You will @strong{not read} these emails as part of your Bug Squad
+duties. If you are curious, go ahead and read them later, but it
+does @strong{not} count as Bug Squad work.
+
+@item
+Any other email sent to (or CC'd to):
+
+@example
+bug-lilypond
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+should go into a separate @code{bug-current} folder.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@end enumerate
+
@node Bug Squad checklists
@section Bug Squad checklists
-We highly recommend that you configure your email client to put
-messages from:
+When you do Bug Squad work, start at the top of this page and work
+your way down. Stop when you've done 20 minutes.
+
+Please use the email sorting described in @ref{Bug Squad setup}.
+This means that (as Bug Squad members) you will only ever respond
+to emails sent or CC'd to the @code{bug-lilypond} mailing list.
+
+
+@subsubheading Emails to you personally
+
+You are not expected to work on Bug Squad matters outside of your
+20 minutes, but sometimes a confused user will send a bug report
+(or an update to a report) to you personally. If that happens,
+please forward such emails to the @code{bug-lilypond} list so that
+the currently-active Bug Squad member(s) can handle the message.
+
+
+@subsubheading Daily schedule
@example
-@@googlecode.com
+Monday: Eluze
+Tuesday: Ralph Palmer
+Wednesday: Marek Klein
+Thursday: Eluze
+Friday:
+Saturday: Colin Campbell
+Sunday: Federico Bruni
@end example
-@noindent
-into a separate folder than emails to @code{bug-lilypond}.
+
+@subsubheading Emails to @code{bug-answers}
+
+Some of these emails will be comments on issues that you added to
+the tracker.
+
+@itemize
+If they are asking for more information, give the additional
+information.
+
+@item
+If the email says that the issue was classified in some other
+manner, read the rationale given and take that into account for
+the next issue you add.
+
+@item
+Otherwise, move them to your @code{bug-ignore} folder.
+
+@end itemize
+
+Some of these emails will be discussions about Bug Squad work;
+read those.
-@subsubheading New emails to @code{bug-lilypond}
+@subsubheading Emails to @code{bug-current}
-Every new email to @code{bug-lilypond} should be handled within
-@strong{24 hours} in the first method which is applicable:
+Dealing with these emails is your main task. Your job is to get
+rid of these emails in the first method which is applicable:
@enumerate
+@item
+If the email has already been handled by a Bug Squad member (i.e.
+check to see who else has replied to it), delete it.
+
+@item
+If the email is a question about how to use LilyPond, reply with
+this response:
+
+@example
+For questions about how to use LilyPond, please read our
+documentation available from:
+ @uref{http://lilypond.org/website/manuals.html}
+or ask the lilypond-user mailing list.
+@end example
@item
-If the email is a question about how to use LilyPond, direct them
-politely to @code{lilypond-user}.
+If the email mentions @qq{the latest git}, or any version number
+that has not yet been officially released, forward it to
+@code{lilypond-devel}.
@item
If a bug report is not in the form of a Tiny example, direct the
-user to resubmit the report after reading @rweb{Tiny examples}.
+user to resubmit the report with this response:
+
+@example
+I'm sorry, but due to our limited resources for handling bugs, we
+can only accept reports in the form of Tiny examples. Please see
+step 2 in our bug reporting guidelines:
+ @uref{http://lilypond.org/website/bug-reports.html}
+@end example
+
+@item
+If anything is unclear, ask the user for more information.
+
+How does the graphical output differ from what the user expected?
+What version of lilypond was used (if not given) and operating
+system (if this is a suspected cause of the problem)? In short,
+if you cannot understand what the problem is, ask the user to
+explain more. It is the user's responsibility to explain the
+problem, not your responsibility to understand it.
@item
If the behavior is expected, the user should be told to read the
-documentation, or asked to clarify how he misread the docs and how
-the docs could be improved.
+documentation:
+
+@example
+I believe that this is the expected behaviour -- please read our
+documentation about this topic. If you think that it really is a
+mistake, please explain in more detail. If you think that the
+docs are unclear, please suggest an improvement as described by
+@qq{Simple tasks -- Documentation} on:
+ @uref{http://lilypond.org/website/help-us.html}
+@end example
@item
If the issue already exists in the tracker, send an email to that
-effect.
+effect:
-@item
-Ask the user for more information, such as lilypond version number
-(if not given) and operating system (if this is a suspected cause
-of the problem).
+@example
+This issue has already been reported; you can follow the
+discussion and be notified about fixes here:
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+(copy+paste the google code issue URL)
@item
Accept the report as described in
@end enumerate
+All emails should be CC'd to the @code{bug-lilypond} list so that
+other Bug Squad members know that you have processed the email.
+
+@warning{There is no option for @qq{ignore the bug report} -- if
+you cannot find a reason to reject the report, you must accept
+it.}
+
+
+@ignore
+@c Try omitting this from Bug Squad duties
@subheading Updates / discussion about issues
discussions between advanced users and/or developers.
@end itemize
+@end ignore
@subheading Regular maintenance
@itemize
@item
-Regression test comparison: if anything has changed suspiciously,
-ask if it was deliberate. The official comparison is online, at:
+Issues to verify: go to
@example
-@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}
@end example
-@item
-Issues to verify: try to reproduce the bug with the latest
-version; if you cannot reproduce the bug, mark the item
-@qq{Verified} (i.e. @qq{the fix has been verified to work}).
+(You can also generate this list by selecting
+@qq{Issues to verify} from the drop-down list next to the search
+box.)
+
+You should see a list of Issues that have been claimed fixed by a
+developer. If the developer has done their job properly, the
+Issue should have a tag @qq{Fixed_mm_MM_ss}, where mm is
+the major version, MM the minor version and ss the current
+release. This will help you work out which you can verify - do
+not verify any Issues where the claimed fixed build is not yet
+released. Work your way through these as follows:
+
+If the Issue refers to a bug, try to reproduce the bug with the latest
+officially released version (not one you've built yourself from
+source); if the bug is no longer there, mark the
+issue @qq{Verified} (i.e. @qq{the fix has been verified to work}).
+
+Quite a few of these will be issues tracking patches. @strong{You
+do not have to prove these patches work - simply that they have
+been pushed into the code base.} The developer should have put
+information similar to @qq{Pushed as as
+d8fce1e1ea2aca1a82e25e47805aef0f70f511b9} in the tracker. The
+long list of letters and numbers is called the @qq{committish}.
+Providing you can find this at the git tracker:
@example
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}
+@uref{http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git}
@end example
-@end itemize
+then you should mark the issue as verified. A quick way of
+finding these is to enter the committish at the following address:
-Once every @strong{two weeks} or so:
+@example
+@uref{http://philholmes.net/lilypond/git/}
+@end example
-@itemize
+The Issue tracker also requires that any issues labelled as
+@qq{Duplicate} are also verified. Check that the linked issue is
+a duplicate and verify the issue.
-@item
-Check for any incorrectly-classified items in the tracker. This
-generally just means looking at the grid to see any items without
-a Type or Priority.
+A few (approximately 10%) of the fixed issues relate to the
+build system or fundamental architecture changes; there is no way
+for you to verify these. Leave those issues alone; somebody else
+will handle them.
@item
-Check for any items with @code{label:patch}. If it's been more
-than a week since the last action on the issue, send an email to
--devel to remind them about it. If the patch was withdrawn for
-more work, then remove the @code{patch} label.
+The official regression test comparison is online at:
+@c NOTE: leave this here. In this case, it's worth duplicating
+@c the link. -gp
@example
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch}
+@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}
@end example
+If anything has changed suspiciously,
+ask if it was deliberate. If the text output from LilyPond (the
+logfile) changes, the differences will be displayed with a +
+before text added to the logfile and - before any text removed
+from the logfile. This may or may not be suspicious.
+
+There is one test designed to produce output every time the
+regtests are created. @code{test-output-distance.ly} creates
+randomly spaced notes and will always have different output if the
+regtest checker is working.
+
+More information is available from in
+@ref{Precompiled regression tests}.
+
+@item
+Check for any incorrectly-classified items in the tracker. This
+generally just means looking at the grid to see any items without
+a Type.
+
@end itemize
+
+@ignore
+@c try omitting from daily tasks for now. -gp
+
@subheading Irregular maintenance
@warning{These tasks are a lot of work; gathering more volunteers
Checking all regtests: although we have a system for checking the
regtests between two versions, occasionally a bug will slip
through the cracks. It is therefore good to manually examine all
-the regtests (compare the images to the text description).
+the regtests (compare the images to the text description). More
+information is available from in @ref{Regression tests}.
+
@item
Checking all issues: we try to mark each Issue @q{fixed} when we
fix it, but occasionally one or two issues will slip through the
-cracks. It is therefore good to check all Issues. If you see the
+cracks. It is therefore good to check all Issues. If you see the
same (broken) output as the initial report, then simply post a
@qq{Problem still exists in 2.x.y} message to the issue.
@end itemize
+@end ignore
+
@node Issue classification
@section Issue classification
The Bug Squad should classify issues according to the guidelines
-given by developers. Every issue should have a Status, Type, and
-Priority; the other fields are optional.
+given by developers. Every issue should have a Status and Type;
+the other fields are optional.
@subheading Status (mandatory)
that contributor.
@item
-Verified: Bug Squad has confirmed that the issue is closed.
+Verified: Bug Squad has confirmed that the issue is closed. This
+means that nobody should ever need look at the report again -- if
+there is any information in the issue that should be kept, open a
+new issue for that info.
@end itemize
@itemize
@item
-Type-Collision: overlapping notation.
+Type-Critical: normally a regression
+against the current stable version or the previous stable version.
+Alternatively, a regression against a fix developed for the
+current version. This does not apply where the
+@qq{regression} occurred because a feature was removed
+deliberately - this is not a bug.
+
+Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release.
+
+@item
+Type-Maintainability: hinders future development.
+
+@item
+Type-Crash: any input which produces a crash.
+
+@item
+Type-Ugly: overlapping or other ugly notation in graphical output.
@item
Type-Defect: a problem in the core program. (the @code{lilypond}
@item
Type-Scripts: problem or desired feature in the non-build-system
scripts. Mostly used for convert-ly, lilypond-book, etc.
+
@item
Type-Enhancement: a feature request for the core program. The
distinction between enhancement and defect isn't extremely clear;
when in doubt, mark it as enhancement.
+@item
+Type-Patch: tracking a patch on Rietveld. Bug squad should not
+need to use this label.
+
@item
Type-Other: anything else.
@end itemize
-
+@ignore
@subheading Priority (mandatory)
Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release.
@itemize
@item
-Priority-Critical: lilypond segfaults, or a regression occurred
-within the last two stable versions. (i.e. when developing 2.13,
-any regression against 2.12 or 2.10 counts)
+Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below)
+against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
+developed for this version. This does not apply where the
+@qq{regression} occurred because a feature was removed
+deliberately - this is not a bug.
@item
-Priority-High: highly embarrassing items, and any regression
-against a version earlier than two stable versions (i.e. when
-developing 2.13, any regression against 2.8 or earlier). This
-level is also used for issues which produce no output and fail to
-give the user a clue about what's wrong.
+Priority-High: An issue which produces output which does not
+accurately reflect the input (e.g. where the user would expect
+an accidental, but none is shown) or which produces aesthetically
+poor output in a situation which could be expected to crop up
+frequently in real-world music. It should not be used where the
+problem can be avoided with a simple workaround. It can also
+be used to flag where new code in a development version is not
+functioning as it should. This level is also used for issues
+which produce no output and fail to give the user a clue about
+what's wrong.
@item
-Priority-Medium: normal priority.
+Priority-Medium: Normal priority - use this as the default.
@item
-Priority-Low: less important than normal.
+Priority-Low: A minor problem which produces slightly undesirable
+output, or which will only occur in contrived examples, or which
+is very easily worked around.
@item
Priority-Postponed: no fix planned. Generally used for things
-like Ancient notation, which nobody wants to touch.
+which nobody wants to touch.
@end itemize
-The difference between Priority-Medium and Priority-Low is not
-well-defined, both in this policy and in practice. The only
-answer we can give at the moment is @qq{look at existing items in
-of the same type, and try to guess whether the priority is closer
-to the Medium items or Low items}. We're aware of the ambiguity,
-and won't complain if somebody picks a @q{wrong} value for
-Medium/Low.
+Note that these are initial classifications and can be subject
+to change by others in the development team. For example, a
+regression against an old stable version which hasn't been
+noticed for a long time and which is unlikely to get fixed could
+be downgraded from Priority-Critical by one of the programmers.
+@end ignore
@subheading Opsys (optional)
Issues that only affect specific operating systems.
+@subheading Patch label (optional)
+
+Normal Bug Squad members should not add or modify Patch issues
+except to verify them; for all other Patch work, leave them to the
+Patch Meister.
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Patch-new: the patch has not been checked for @qq{obvious}
+mistakes. When in doubt, use this tag.
+
+@item
+Patch-review: the patch has no @qq{obvious} mistakes (as checked
+by the Patch Meister), and is ready for review from main
+developers.
+
+Developers with git push ability can use this category, skipping
+over @code{patch-new}.
+
+@item
+Patch-needs_work: a developer has some concerns about the patch.
+This does not necessarily mean that the patch must be changed; in
+some cases, the developer's concerns can be resolved simply by
+discussion the situation or providing notation examples.
+
+If the patch is updated, the category should be changed to
+@code{patch-new} (for normal contributors) or @code{patch-review}
+(for developers who are very confident about their patch).
+
+@item
+Patch-countdown: final call for any patch problems
+
+@item
+Patch-push: patch has passed the countdown and should be pushed.
+
+@item
+Patch-abandoned: the author has not responded to review comments
+for a few months.
+
+@end itemize
@subheading Other items (optional)
@itemize
@item
-Regression: it used to @strong{deliberately} work in an earlier
-stable release. If the earlier output was accidental (i.e. we
-didn't try to stop a collision, but it just so happened that two
-grobs didn't collide), then breaking it does not count as a
-regression.
+Regression: it used to work intentionally in the current
+stable release or the previous stable release. If the earlier
+output was accidental (i.e. we didn't try to stop a collision,
+but it just so happened that two grobs didn't collide), then
+breaking it does not count as a regression.
+
+To help decide whether the change is a regression, please adopt
+the following process:
+
+@enumerate
+
+@item
+Are you certain the change is OK? If so, do nothing.
+
+@item
+Are you certain that the change is bad? Add it to the tracker
+as a regression.
@item
-Patch: a patch to fix an issue is attached.
+If you're not certain either way, add it to the tracker as a
+regression but be aware that it may be recategorised or marked
+invalid.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+In particular, anything that breaks a regression test is a
+regression.
@item
Frog: the fix is believed to be suitable for a new contributor
(does not require a great deal of knowledge about LilyPond). The
issue should also have an estimated time in a comment.
-@item
-Maintainability: hinders developent of LilyPond. For example,
-improvements to the build system, or @qq{helper} python scripts.
-
@item
Bounty: somebody is willing to pay for the fix. Only add this tag
if somebody has offered an exact figure in US dollars or euros.
documentation.
@item
-Security: might potentially be used.
+Security: security risk.
@item
-Performance: might potentially be used.
+Performance: performance issue.
@end itemize
-If you particularly want to add an label not in the list, go
-ahead, but this is not recommended.
+If you particularly want to add a label not in the list, go
+ahead, but this is not recommended, except when an issue is marked
+as fixed. In this case it should be labeled Fixed_mm_MM_ss,
+where mm is major version, MM minor version and ss current
+release.
@node Adding issues to the tracker
In order to assign labels to issues, Bug Squad members should log
in to their google account before adding an item.
-@subsubheading Normal issues
-
@enumerate
@item
@item
Add the issue and classify it according to the guidelines in
@ref{Issue classification}. In particular, the item should have
-@code{Status}, @code{Type-}, and @code{Priority-} labels.
+@code{Status} and @code{Type-} labels.
+
+Include output with the first applicable method:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+If the issue has a notation example which fits in one system,
+generate a small @file{bug.preview.png} file with:
+
+@example
+lilypond -dpreview bug.ly
+@end example
+
+@item
+If the issue has an example which requires more than one system
+(i.e. a spacing bug), generate a @file{bug.png} file with:
+
+@example
+lilypond --png bug.ly
+@end example
+
+@item
+If the issue requires one or two pages of output, then generate a
+@file{bug.png} file with the normal:
+
+@example
+lilypond --png bug.ly
+@end example
+
+@item
+Images created as @file{bug.png} may be trimmed to a minimum size
+by using the @code{trimtagline.sh} script, which can be found at
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://raw.github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/master/bug-squad/trimtagline.sh}
+@end smallexample
+
+@example
+trimtagline.sh bug.ly
+@end example
+
+@item
+If the issue cannot be shown with less than three pages, then
+generate a @file{bug.pdf} file with:
+
+@example
+lilypond --pdf bug.ly
+@end example
+
+Note that this is likely to be extremely rare; most bugs should
+fit into the first two categories above.
+
+
+@end itemize
@item
After adding the issue, please send a response email to the same
@end enumerate
-@subsubheading Patch reminders
+
+@node Patch handling
+@section Patch handling
@warning{This is not a Bug Squad responsibility; we have a
separate person handling this task.}
-There is a special category of issues: reminders of an existing
-patch. These should be added if a patch has been sent to a
-lilypond mailing list (generally @code{lilypond-devel}, but they
-sometimes appear on @code{bug-lilypond} as well) and has had no
-discussion for at least @strong{3 days}. Do not add issues for
-patches under active discussion.
+For contributors/developers: follow the steps in
+@ref{Commits and patches}, and @ref{Pushing to staging}.
+
+@ignore
+For people doing maintenance tasks: git-cl is adding issues, James
+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.
+To create the countdown announcement, use the
+@code{make-countdown-announcement.sh} script, which takes the
+deadline date, and optionally your name. Follow the instructions
+provided:
+
+@example
+cd $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR
+../scripts/auxiliar/make-countdown-announcement.sh "Jan 1, 2001" James
+@end example
+
+The script produces an announcement that is easily readable in all
+email clients. Also, whenever a new contributor submits a patch,
+you will be prompted to add the new username and author name to
+the script itself, and then commit those changes to the main git
+repository.
+
+
+@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
@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.
+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
+
+@end ignore
@node Summary of project status
@section Summary of project status
-The best overview of our current status is given by the grid view:
+@subsubheading Project overview
-@example
+Grid view provides the best overview:
+
+@smallexample
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
-@end example
+@end smallexample
-Also of interest might be the issues hindering future development:
+@subsubheading Hindering development
-@example
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Maintainability&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
-@end example
+These issues stop or slow development work:
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Maintainability}
+@end smallexample
+
+@subsubheading Easy tasks
-Finally, issues tagged with @code{Frog} indicates a task suitable
-for a relatively new contributor. The time given is a quick
+Issues tagged with @code{Frog} indicates a task suitable for a
+relatively new contributor. The time given is a quick
(inaccurate) estimate of the time required for somebody who is
familiar with material in this manual, but does not know anything
else about LilyPond development.
-@example
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids}
-@end example
-
+@smallexample
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog}
+@end smallexample
-@node Finding the cause of a regression
-@section Finding the cause of a regression
+@subsubheading Patches to review
-@warning{This is not a @qq{simple} task; it requires a fair amount
-of technical knowledge.}
+Patches which have no @qq{obvious} problems:
-Git has special functionality to help tracking down the exact
-commit which causes a problem. See the git manual page for
-@code{git bisect}. This is a job that non-programmers can do,
-although it requires familiarity with git, ability to compile
-LilyPond, and generally a fair amount of technical knowledge. An
-in-depth explanation of this process will not be given here.
+@example
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch-review}
+@end example
-Even if you are not familiar with git or are not able to compile
-LilyPond you can still help to narrow down the cause of a
-regression simply by downloading the binary releases of different
-LilyPond versions and testing them for the regression. Knowing
-which version of LilyPond first exhibited the regression is
-helpful to a developer as it shortens the @code{git bisect}
-procedure described above.
-Once a problematic commit is identified, the programmers' job is
-much easier. In fact, for most regression bugs, the majority of
-the time is spent simply finding the problematic commit.
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff