@menu
* Introduction to issues::
+* Bug Squad overview::
* Bug Squad setup::
* Bug Squad checklists::
* Issue classification::
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
@subsubheading Daily schedule
@example
-Monday: Ralph
-Tuesday: Eluze
-Wednesday: Brett
-Thursday: Colin Hall (disambiguation here)
-Friday: Marek
-Saturday: Brett
-Sunday: Phil
+Monday: Eluze
+Tuesday: Ralph Palmer
+Wednesday: Marek Klein
+Thursday: Eluze
+Friday:
+Saturday: Colin Campbell
+Sunday: Federico Bruni
@end example
@itemize
@item
-Issues to verify: 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}).
-
-The list of items to verify is here:
+Issues to verify: go to
@example
@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}
@end example
-You can also generate this list by selecting @qq{Issues to verify}
-from the drop-down list next to the search box.
+(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
@uref{http://philholmes.net/lilypond/git/}
@end example
+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.
+
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
-Regression test comparison: if anything has changed suspiciously,
+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://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
randomly spaced notes and will always have different output if the
regtest checker is working.
-The official comparison is online, at:
-
-@c NOTE: leave this here. In this case, it's worth duplicating
-@c the link. -gp
-@example
-@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}
-@end example
-
More information is available from in
@ref{Precompiled regression tests}.
@item
Type-Critical: normally a regression
-against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
-developed for this version. This does not apply where the
+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.
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.
Issues that only affect specific operating systems.
-@subheading Patch (optional)
+@subheading Patch label (optional)
-Normal Bug Squad members should not add or modify Patch issues;
-leave them to the Patch Meister.
+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
@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.
@itemize
@item
-Regression: it used to work intentionally 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:
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 labelled fixed_mm_MM_ss,
+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.
@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:
@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
@warning{This is not a Bug Squad responsibility; we have a
separate person handling this task.}
+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.
+
+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:
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
@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
@end itemize
-
+@end ignore
@node Summary of project status