X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fissues.itexi;h=09b049f53c4cb928cf29e2d47eafe9b5cbce1b99;hb=3537a7b32dd527c7a13219165aa0ddec80f60fa9;hp=2d496e830e79f9ba489902a06199232c0880685c;hpb=7ba0a22641cb0c7f5949d66a06d1e2e1fd0b3033;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index 2d496e830e..09b049f53c 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi @@ -7,12 +7,13 @@ miscellaneous development tasks. @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 @@ -24,10 +25,10 @@ are @qq{simple} tasks: they can be done by a normal user with 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 @@ -38,6 +39,35 @@ 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 @@ -50,9 +80,7 @@ you sort your folders alphabetically. @enumerate @item -Skim through every section of this chapter, @ref{Issues}. Read in -detail any sections called @qq{Bug Squad...}, or any page linked -from @ref{Bug Squad checklists}. +Read every section of this chapter, @ref{Issues}. @item If you do not have one already, create a gmail account and send @@ -66,6 +94,13 @@ 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: @@ -73,6 +108,9 @@ Sign in to google code by clicking in the top-right corner of: @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}. @@ -129,7 +167,7 @@ should go into a separate @code{bug-current} folder. @section 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 15 minutes. +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 @@ -139,7 +177,7 @@ 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 -15 minutes, but sometimes a confused user will send a bug report +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. @@ -147,16 +185,14 @@ the currently-active Bug Squad member(s) can handle the message. @subsubheading Daily schedule -The Bug Meister is omitted from the daily schedule. - @example -Sunday: Valentin -Monday: Dmytro -Tuesday: James Bailey -Wednesday: Ralph -Thursday: Patrick -Friday: Urs -Saturday: Kieren +Monday: Eluze +Tuesday: +Wednesday: Marek Klein +Thursday: Eluze +Friday: +Saturday: Colin Campbell +Sunday: @end example @@ -306,61 +342,91 @@ After @strong{every release} (both stable and unstable): @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 -@c NOTE: leave this here. In this case, it's worth duplicating -@c the link. -gp @example -@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/} +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7} @end example -More information is available from in -@ref{Precompiled regression tests}. +(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://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git} +@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}). +then you should mark the issue as verified. A quick way of +finding these is to enter the committish at the following address: @example -@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7} +@uref{http://philholmes.net/lilypond/git/} @end example -A few (approximately 10%) of these fixed issues relate to the +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. -@end itemize +@item +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 -@ignore -@c try omitting from daily tasks for now. -gp +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. -Once every @strong{two weeks} or so: +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. -@itemize +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 or Priority. - -@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. - -@example -@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch} -@end example +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 @@ -395,8 +461,8 @@ same (broken) output as the initial report, then simply post a @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) @@ -457,7 +523,23 @@ The issue's Type should be the first relevant item in this list. @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} @@ -475,17 +557,22 @@ includes the makefiles, stepmake, python scripts, and GUB. @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. @@ -493,42 +580,91 @@ 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) @@ -537,24 +673,39 @@ Other labels: @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 development 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. @@ -567,15 +718,18 @@ to warnings when compiling the source code or generating 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 @@ -588,8 +742,6 @@ follow the guidelines for @rweb{Bug reports}.} 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 @@ -602,7 +754,7 @@ 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: @@ -625,13 +777,37 @@ lilypond --png bug.ly @end example @item -If the issue requires multi-page output, then generate a -@file{bug.pdf} file with the normal: +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 @@ -644,18 +820,142 @@ email should contain a link to the issue you just added. @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_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: + +@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 @@ -664,65 +964,126 @@ 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. +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 -Finally, issues tagged with @code{Frog} indicates a task suitable -for a relatively new contributor. The time given is a quick +@subsubheading Easy tasks + +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. - -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. +@example +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch-review} +@end example -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. -More information is in @ref{Regression tests}.