Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:24:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: >> >> > Patch-waiting: Patch is blocked, but still needs review >> >> I would have just kept it at at "Patch-new" until the block was gone. > > no, because I'm obsessive about having work done by completely > autonomous scripts with no human intervention. The past few > months have reinforced this for me: sometimes we just have a ton > of bad luck and lots of regular developers drop out or vastly > scale back their activities. > > Patch-new should be handled with a minimum of fuss. That means > automatically testing each one, automatically rejecting if any > automatic tests can reliably determine that it's bad patch (i.e. > failure to compile either binary or test output), and then waiting > for a human to glance a regtests and then press a button saying > "sure, they look plausible". > > There's no way to automate the review stage (or now the countdown > stage, or waiting stage), so we'll park stuff there.
But if the review process needs to look at the issue status anyway, it can also see a "blocked on" and just skip any work. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
