X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fissues.itexi;h=19509f1e52d03584505ea565cfdbceeddef81001;hb=d251be5cf511690e874a0ed01bdde6b7f559423b;hp=9bf1f2212065f5612abaca88ab82f405a595182d;hpb=cbf6591a9011b84f4563d4c6c529ed3ff24d27ec;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index 9bf1f22120..19509f1e52 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -@c -*- coding: us-ascii; mode: texinfo; -*- +@c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*- @node Issues @chapter Issues @@ -6,51 +6,485 @@ This chapter deals with defects, feature requests, and miscellaneous development tasks. @menu -* Introduction to issues:: -* Issue classification:: -* Adding issues to the tracker:: -* Checking and verifying issues:: +* 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 @node Introduction to issues @section Introduction to issues -First, @qq{issue} 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. +@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.} -Second, the classification of what counts as a bug vs. feature -request, and the priorities assigned to bugs, are a matter of -concern @strong{for developers only}. If you are curious about -the classification, read on, but don't complain that your -particular issue is higher priority or counts as a bug rather than -a feature request. +@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}. + +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. + +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 + +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 +Monday: Ralph +Tuesday: Eluze +Wednesday: Marek +Thursday: Colin Hall (disambiguation here) +Friday: Marek +Saturday: James +Sunday: Phil +@end example + + +@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 Emails to @code{bug-current} + +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 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 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: + +@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: + +@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 +@ref{Adding issues to the tracker}. + +@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 + +We try to keep discussions about issues on the tracker, but +sometimes it spills over onto email. If discussion has ended with +no patch / resolution and at least @strong{3 days} have passed, +then either: + +@itemize + +@item +Summarize the recent discussion on the tracker, and add a link to +the original discussion. + +@item +Add the comment @qq{there was some technical discussion which I +could not understand}, and include a link to the original +discussion. + +We do not expect Bug Squad members to be programmers, or even to +be moderately-skilled users. Your job is to keep track of issue +reports; it is @emph{perfectly acceptable} to not understand +discussions between advanced users and/or developers. + +@end itemize +@end ignore + + +@subheading Regular maintenance + +After @strong{every release} (both stable and unstable): + +@itemize + +@item +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 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 + +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://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 +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 +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 +to help is definitely recommended. However, the Bug Squad should +handle the organization and training of new volunteers.} + +Once every year or two: + +@itemize + +@item +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). 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 +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 -Status values: +The Bug Squad should classify issues according to the guidelines +given by developers. Every issue should have a Status and Type; +the other fields are optional. + +@subheading Status (mandatory) + +Open issues: @itemize @item -New: the item was added by a non-member. Should be reviewed by -the Bug Meister. +New: the item was added by a non-member, despite numerous warnings +not to do this. Should be reviewed by a member of the Bug Squad. @item -Accepted: the Bug Meister added it, or reviewed the item. +Accepted: the Bug Squad added it, or reviewed the item. @item -Started: a programmer is working on a bugfix. (used infrequently, -but should be used more often) +Started: a contributor is working on a fix. Owner should change +to be this contributor. @end itemize -Closed status values: + +Closed issues: @itemize @@ -61,70 +495,211 @@ Invalid: issue should not have been added in the current state. Duplicate: issue already exists in the tracker. @item -Fixed: programmer claims to have fixed the bug. The Bug Meister -should check the input code in an official binary release. +Fixed: a contributor claims to have fixed the bug. The Bug +Squad should check the fix with the next official binary release +(not by compiling the source from git). Owner should be set to +that contributor. @item -Verified: Bug Meister 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 -Type labels: + +@subheading Owner (optional) + +Newly-added issues should have @emph{no owner}. When a +contributor indicates that he has Started or Fixed an item, he +should become the owner. + + +@subheading Type (mandatory) + +The issue's Type should be the first relevant item in this list. @itemize @item -Type-Defect: a problem that requires no (or very little) new code -to fix. +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-Enhancement: a problem (or new feature) that requries a -significant amount of new code. +Type-Defect: a problem in the core program. (the @code{lilypond} +binary, scm files, fonts, etc). @item -Type-Collision: overlapping notation. (this label takes -precedence over -Defect and -Enhancement) +Type-Documentation: inaccurate, missing, confusing, or desired +additional info. Must be fixable by editing a texinfo, ly, or scm +file. @item -Type-Task: not used, I think. TODO: start using it or delete it. +Type-Build: problem or desired features in the build system. This +includes the makefiles, stepmake, python scripts, and GUB. @item -Type-Other: anything else. TODO: start using it or delete it. +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 -Priority labels: +@ignore +@subheading Priority (mandatory) + +Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release. @itemize @item -Priority-High: lilypond segfaults. +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-Regression: it used to work. +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; this is the highest priority a -non-crashing, non-regression bug report can receive. -(regardless of the perceived importance) +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 -Opsys lables: pretty self-explanatory. +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) -Other lables: +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: a patch to fix an issue is attached. +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) + +Other labels: + +@itemize + +@item +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 +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 @@ -132,118 +707,292 @@ Frog: the fix is believed to be suitable for a new contributor issue should also have an estimated time in a comment. @item -Security: not used. TODO: delete, unless anybody is serious about -this. +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. @item -Performance: not used. TODO: delete. +Warning: graphical output is fine, but lilypond prints a +false/misleading warning message. Alternately, a warning should +be printed (such as a bar line error), but was not. Also applies +to warnings when compiling the source code or generating +documentation. @item -Usability: not used. TODO: delete. +Security: security risk. @item -Maintainability: hinders developent of LilyPond. For example, -improvements to the build system, or @qq{helper} python scripts. +Performance: performance issue. + +@end itemize + +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 +@section Adding issues to the tracker + +@warning{This should only be done by the Bug Squad or experienced +developers. Normal users should not do this; instead, they should +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. + +@enumerate @item -Bounty: somebody is willing to pay for the fix. +Check if the issue falls into any previous category given on the +relevant checklists in @ref{Bug Squad checklists}. If in doubt, +add a new issue for a report. We would prefer to have some +incorrectly-added issues rather than lose information that should +have been added. @item -Engraving-nitpick: output is not beautiful, but not strictly -speaking @qq{wrong}. For example, a slur shape which does not -collide with any notation, but looks ugly. +Add the issue and classify it according to the guidelines in +@ref{Issue classification}. In particular, the item should have +@code{Status} and @code{Type-} labels. + +Include output with the first applicable method: + +@itemize @item -Warning-nitpick: graphical output is fine, but lilypond prints a -false/misleading warning message. +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 +group(s) that the initial patch was sent to. If the initial email +was sent to multiple mailing lists (such as both @code{user} and +@code{bugs}), then reply to all those mailing lists as well. The +email should contain a link to the issue you just added. -@node Adding issues to the tracker -@section Adding issues to the tracker +@end enumerate + + + +@node Patch handling +@section Patch handling + +@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}. + +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. + +@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). -FIXME: prettify. +Issue numbers are cheap; losing developers because they got fed up +with us losing their hard work is expensive. -only done by Bug Meister, unless you're really certain you know -what you're doing. +@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 +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. + +@end itemize -@node Checking and verifying issues -@section Checking and verifying issues +@subheading Helpers: @code{Patch-review} label -After each release (both stable and unstable): +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 -Regression test comparison: check the relevant version in -@uref{http://lilypond.org/test/}. +Descriptive subject line. + +Avoid subjects like @qq{fixes 123}; instead write @qq{Doc: discuss +stacking-dir for BassFigureAlignment (fix 123)}. @item -Issues to verify: -@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7}. +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 -Once every year or so: + +@subheading Patch Meister + +The Patch Meister will: @itemize @item -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 twice a year or so (compare the images to the text -description). +send @qq{countdown} emails to +@code{lilypond-devel} when patches appear to be ready. @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 -same (broken) output as the initial report, then simply post a -"Problem still exists in 2.x.y" message to the issue. +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 +@subsubheading Patches to review -@node Finding the cause of a regression -@section Finding the cause of a regression +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}. +@example +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch-review} +@end example -This is a job that non-programmers can do; 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.