X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fissues.itexi;h=7bea16493755889276220f35dc2aa15b7eb4586e;hb=9564d2844d109d0730cf850bbeb7768bb4d721d1;hp=7c715a4aedbd8df4d583a6c59b343cc8973af271;hpb=5e44b5f4dba63d3649331e317286be089955edde;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index 7c715a4aed..7bea164937 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 @@ -80,8 +108,8 @@ 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 if you have Google Sharing -@uref{http://www.googlesharing.net/} enabled. +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}. @@ -139,7 +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 @@ -149,7 +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. @@ -157,16 +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: Colin -Monday: Dmytro -Tuesday: James Bailey -Wednesday: Ralph -Thursday: Patrick -Friday: Urs -Saturday: Kieren +Monday: Colin H +Tuesday: Eluze +Wednesday: Marek +Thursday: Ralph +Friday: Marek +Saturday: Mark +Sunday: Colin H @end example @@ -316,61 +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 @@ -405,8 +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) @@ -467,7 +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} @@ -491,12 +563,16 @@ 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. @@ -504,11 +580,11 @@ Currently, only Critical items will block a stable release. @itemize @item -Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression 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. +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: An issue which produces output which does not @@ -536,11 +612,59 @@ which nobody wants to touch. @end itemize +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) @@ -549,24 +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 -Patch: a patch to fix an issue is attached. +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 (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. @@ -579,15 +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 a label not in the list, go -ahead, but this is not recommended. +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 @@ -600,8 +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 @@ -614,7 +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: @@ -644,6 +784,18 @@ If the issue requires one or two pages of output, then generate a 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: @@ -652,8 +804,8 @@ generate a @file{bug.pdf} file with: 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. +Note that this is likely to be extremely rare; most bugs should +fit into the first two categories above. @end itemize @@ -668,202 +820,179 @@ 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}. -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: +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://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git} +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch&sort=patch} @end example -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. - - - -@node Summary of project status -@section Summary of project status -The best overview of our current status is given by the grid view: +@subheading Helpers: adding patches -@example -@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids} -@end example +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. -Also of interest might be the issues hindering future development: +@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). -@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 +Issue numbers are cheap; losing developers because they got fed up +with us losing their hard work is expensive. -Finally, 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. +@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://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog&mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids} +@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). -@node Finding the cause of a regression -@section Finding the cause of a regression - -@warning{This is not a @qq{simple} task; it requires a fair amount -of technical knowledge.} +@item +After adding the issue, please send a response email to the same +group(s) that the initial patch was sent to. -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. A -brief summary is given below, but you may need to consult other -documentation for in-depth explanations. +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. -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. +@end itemize -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. +@subheading Helpers: @code{Patch-review} label -More information is in @ref{Regression tests}. +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: -@subheading git bisect setup +@itemize +@item +Applies automatically to git master. -We need to set up the bisect for each problem we want to -investigate. +It's ok to have offsets, but not conflicts. -Suppose we have an input file which compiled in version 2.13.32, -but fails in version 2.13.38 and above. +@item +Regtest comparison looks ok; no unexpected changes. -@enumerate @item -Begin the process: +Descriptive subject line. -@example -git bisect start -@end example +Avoid subjects like @qq{fixes 123}; instead write @qq{Doc: discuss +stacking-dir for BassFigureAlignment (fix 123)}. @item -Give it the earliest known bad tag: +Compiles docs from scratch. Only check this if you have reason to +suspect it might not work. -@example -git bisect bad release/2.13.38-1 -@end example +@item +(maybe) -(you can see tags with: @code{git tag} ) +Check code indentation and style. This should be easier post-GOP +when we have a better-defined code style. -@item -Give it the latest known good tag: +@end itemize -@example -git bisect good release/2.13.32-1 -@end example -You should now see something like: -@example -Bisecting: 195 revisions left to test after this (roughly 8 steps) -[b17e2f3d7a5853a30f7d5a3cdc6b5079e77a3d2a] Web: Announcement -update for the new "LilyPond Report" -@end example +@subheading Patch Meister -@end enumerate +The Patch Meister will: -@subheading git bisect actual +@itemize -@enumerate +@item +send @qq{countdown} emails to +@code{lilypond-devel} when patches appear to be ready. @item -Compile the source: +send general requests to review patches, or even nasty requests to +review patches. -@example -make -@end example +@item +downgrade patches from @code{Patch-review} to +@code{Patch-needs_work} as appropriate. @item -Test your input file: +downgrade patches from @code{Patch-needs_work} to +@code{Patch-abandoned} if no actions have been taken in four +weeks. -@example -out/bin/lilypond test.ly -@end example +@end itemize -@item -Test results? +@end ignore -@itemize -@item -Does it crash, or is the output bad? If so: -@example -git bisect bad -@end example +@node Summary of project status +@section Summary of project status -@item -Does your input file produce good output? If so: +@subsubheading Project overview -@example -git bisect good -@end example +Grid view provides the best overview: -@end itemize +@smallexample +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?mode=grid&y=Priority&x=Type&cells=ids} +@end smallexample -@item -Once the exact problem commit has been identified, git will inform -you with a message like: +@subsubheading Hindering development -@example -6d28aebbaaab1be9961a00bf15a1ef93acb91e30 is the first bad commit -%%% ... blah blah blah ... -@end example +These issues stop or slow development work: -If there is still a range of commits, then git will automatically -select a new version for you to test. Go to step #1. +@smallexample +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Maintainability} +@end smallexample -@end enumerate +@subsubheading Easy tasks -@subheading Recommendation: use two terminal windows +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. -@itemize -@item -One window is open to the @code{build/} directory, and alternates -between these commands: +@smallexample +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:Frog} +@end smallexample -@example -make -out/bin/lilypond test.ly -@end example +@subsubheading Patches to review -@item -One window is open to the top source directory, and alternates -between these commands: +Patches which have no @qq{obvious} problems: @example -git bisect good -git bisect bad +@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=label:patch-review} @end example -@end itemize +