On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:16:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > Too hard for people with less than 5 hours of training to > > determine. > > I am not sure I understand that rationale. > > git log origin > > Is it there or not? Can you think of a _simpler_ test that works for > figuring out something is in _staging_?
David, I cannot teach somebody to use git in less than 5 hours. All the evidence from the past years of lilypond development suggests that we cannot teach people to use git in less than 5 hours. The idea behind the bug squad is that unskilled users -- no git, no linux, no programming experience -- can help out with a minimal time investment (20 minutes a week). We require that they are able to read+write emails in English, and use a web2.0 facebook on par with the difficulty of using facebook. That's it. There's also about 10 pages in the CG they need to read. If training takes more than, oh, say 3 sessions (i.e. 60 minutes total), then most potential volunteers will give up. Less than 50% of bug squad volunteers are active after 4 weeks of initially volunteering. We should not be making it harder to do the bug squad duties. Now, maybe the best answer is "bug squad: don't try to verify 'patch' issues, leave all those for an experienced developer to examine". But I don't see the point of that. It's pretty rare of us to lose patches -- say, maybe 2% of patches get lost? And that was before all the Patchy stuff. Having a simple check of "is it in webgit or not" will probably catch 90-95% of the 2% of patches that would have gotten lost. > Note that it means _nothing_ at all if Savannah knows about the commit > id. There are a number of possible reasons for that (for example, it > knows about something I accidentally pushed then removed again, and it > knows about everything pushed to private branches). That's a good point; I didn't realize about private branches. Still, I think that to some extent this is a solution looking for a problem. (or maybe "a problem looking for a problem"?) How much grief could we have avoided if we had a developer checking for patches in the git log for master? I can't think of any grief this would have avoided. Frankly, I don't think it would be horrible if nobody even _tried_ to verify patches and just automatically marked them as verified. But if people want to do a bit more than that, I think that checking for the commit in savannah is a decent trade-off. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
