X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=Documentation%2Fcontributor%2Fissues.itexi;h=8fe73428eefb6b50f452ae211661ee47b77b943c;hb=8cd87804592a2815e35cbdaff2cd98e5e3dc59ce;hp=a915a60422d963f9ab6dc02b79e1384684df2bbe;hpb=3b8f430efd506ccd6ae8235be0f08468c0da937d;p=lilypond.git diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi index a915a60422..8fe73428ee 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/issues.itexi @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ miscellaneous development tasks. @menu * Introduction to issues:: +* Bug Squad overview:: * Bug Squad setup:: * Bug Squad checklists:: * Issue classification:: @@ -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 @@ -155,16 +185,14 @@ the currently-active Bug Squad member(s) can handle the message. @subsubheading Daily schedule -@c spacing is deliberate to help reinforce the "cyclic" nature - @example -Monday: James -Tuesday: Colin -Wednesday: Brett -Thursday: James -Friday: Colin -Saturday: Brett -Sunday: Phil +Monday: Eluze +Tuesday: Ralph Palmer +Wednesday: Marek Klein +Thursday: Eluze +Friday: +Saturday: Colin Campbell +Sunday: Federico Bruni @end example @@ -314,43 +342,80 @@ After @strong{every release} (both stable and unstable): @itemize @item -Regression test comparison: 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. - -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 -official GUB 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. +@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 @@ -396,8 +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) @@ -458,7 +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} @@ -482,12 +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. @@ -533,14 +618,17 @@ 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 (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 @@ -566,6 +654,12 @@ 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. @@ -579,14 +673,14 @@ 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, and therefore -should be Priority-Critical, please adopt the following process: +To help decide whether the change is a regression, please adopt +the following process: @enumerate @@ -595,12 +689,12 @@ 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 Critical issue, regression. +as a regression. @item If you're not certain either way, add it to the tracker as a -Critical issue, regression but be aware that it may be -recategorised or marked invalid. +regression but be aware that it may be recategorised or marked +invalid. @end enumerate @@ -612,10 +706,6 @@ 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. @@ -628,15 +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 @@ -661,7 +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: @@ -694,7 +787,10 @@ 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 @@ -708,8 +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 @@ -731,6 +827,106 @@ 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 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_BUILD_DIR +../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: @@ -756,6 +952,7 @@ new issue with the @code{Patch-new} label and a link to the patch 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 @@ -768,6 +965,7 @@ 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 @@ -845,7 +1043,7 @@ weeks. @end itemize - +@end ignore @node Summary of project status