Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > 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_?
> 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. I disagree. I consider it a total waste of time to just check if Savannah has at one time heard about the commit id in whatever context. The commit id is known to Savannah even if a push is rejected by the server (since it receives the commit object before making the decision). Either we connect the status with something that has anything remotely to do with verification, or we don't. And if we don't, we should not go waste anybody's time on it. Actually, the verification for a commit id to be in master can be as simple as git fetch git log origin..cf93b1df71253b2686ceabacdf49a47e6908da64 If the output is empty, the commit is in master. If the output is an error, it is not to be seen in the branches that the tester has fetched. If the output is nonempty, the commit cf93... is not present in origin. If that can't be taught in five hours, then we should just scrap verification instead of making it a meaningless procedure. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
