X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fissues.itexi;h=09925d4208c80e084f080aad5aa1c42226e7bdb0;hb=d40c9d6bdd81025c7c151e952712e85605d68c93;hp=a4b114d26736b83fe4126653eedc28b3d4a3e700;hpb=0f68a5a1b6f789c2a0ec0e4584a3495832a3b6d7;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index a4b114d267..09925d4208 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*- +Elu@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*- @node Issues @chapter Issues @@ -7,8 +7,7 @@ miscellaneous development tasks. @menu * Introduction to issues:: -* Bug Squad setup:: -* Bug Squad checklists:: +* The Bug Squad:: * Issue classification:: * Adding issues to the tracker:: * Patch handling:: @@ -19,28 +18,56 @@ miscellaneous development tasks. @node Introduction to issues @section Introduction to issues -@warning{Unless otherwise specified, all the tasks in this chapter -are @qq{simple} tasks: they can be done by a normal user with -nothing more than a web browser, email, and lilypond.} +@warning{All the tasks in this chapter require no programming skills and +can be done by anyone with a web browser, an email client and the +ability to run LilyPond.} + +The term @q{issues} refers not just to software bugs but also includes +feature requests, documentation additions and corrections as well as any +other general code @q{TODOs} that need to be kept track of. + + +@node The Bug Squad +@section The Bug Squad + +@menu +* Bug Squad setup:: +* Bug Squad checklists:: +@end menu + +To help keep track and organize all issues are a group of tireless +volunteers collectively known as the @emph{Bug Squad}. Composed mainly +of non-programmers, the Bug Squad's responsibilities include: + +@itemize + +@item +Monitoring the LilyPond Bugs mailing list looking for any issues +reported by other users ensuring that they are accurate and contain +enough information for the developers to work with, preferably with +@rweb{Tiny examples} and if applicable, screenshots. + +@item +Adding new issues to the @emph{issue tracker} or updating existing +issues with new information. -@qq{Issues} isn't just a politically-correct term for @qq{bug}. -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}. +@item +Verifying issues in the @emph{issue tracker} that have been marked +as @q{fixed}; making sure either that the fix works or (in the case of +Documentation for example) has at least been commited to the code base. + +@end itemize -The Bug Squad is mainly composed of non-programmers -- their job -is to @emph{organize} issues, not solve them. Their duties -include removing false bug reports, ensuring that any real bug -report contains enough information for developers, and checking -that a developer's fix actually resolves the problem. +The @ref{Meisters, Bug Meister} also helps check the current +@ref{Regression tests} and highlights any significant changes (or +problems) since the previous LilyPond release. -New volunteers for the Bug Squad should contact the +If you would like to be part of the Bug Squad, please contact the @ref{Meisters, Bug Meister}. @node Bug Squad setup -@section Bug Squad setup +@subsection Bug Squad setup We highly recommend that you configure your email to use effective sorting; this can reduce your workload @emph{immensely}. The @@ -134,7 +161,7 @@ should go into a separate @code{bug-current} folder. @node Bug Squad checklists -@section Bug Squad checklists +@subsection Bug Squad checklists 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. @@ -153,16 +180,16 @@ 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 +@subsubheading Daily schedule as of July 2015 @example -Monday: Ralph -Tuesday: Eluze -Wednesday: Brett -Thursday: Colin Hall (disambiguation here) -Friday: Marek -Saturday: Brett -Sunday: Phil +Monday: Federico Bruni +Tuesday: Simon Albrecht +Wednesday: Simon Albrecht +Thursday: Colin Campbell +Friday: Ralph Palmer +Saturday: Colin Campbell +Sunday: @end example @@ -312,19 +339,28 @@ After @strong{every release} (both stable and unstable): @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 @@ -345,13 +381,25 @@ finding these is to enter the committish at the following address: @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 @@ -362,14 +410,6 @@ regtests are created. @code{test-output-distance.ly} creates 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}. @@ -481,8 +521,9 @@ The issue's Type should be the first relevant item in this list. @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. @@ -519,6 +560,10 @@ 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. @@ -576,10 +621,11 @@ be downgraded from Priority-Critical by one of the programmers. 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 @@ -605,6 +651,12 @@ 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. @@ -618,11 +670,11 @@ Other labels: @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: @@ -672,7 +724,7 @@ Performance: performance issue. 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. @@ -699,7 +751,7 @@ have been added. @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: @@ -732,7 +784,10 @@ lilypond --png bug.ly @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 @@ -769,6 +824,106 @@ email should contain a link to the issue you just added. @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}, @ref{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_GIT +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: @@ -807,6 +962,7 @@ message) on the webgit page: @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 @@ -884,7 +1040,7 @@ weeks. @end itemize - +@end ignore @node Summary of project status