Werner, > I was handling the rest, fixing `global' glitches here and there. Since > I'm no longer actively maintaining groff, the glitches become more > visible. We need someone who is going to handle this... Basically > for license issues, Ingo won't do that, which is a pity, but we have > to accept.
I am not readily able to gauge the severity and nature of most issues reported. If you think there are certain issues that I should be looking at, please assign them to me on Savannah. > I fully agree that it would be extremely helpful to have both! I > invite you to work on this – it would be a good start to get > acquainted with the overall structure of groff without getting `dirty > fingers' too early, so to say. Ok! I will glad to be useful. I assume we will have to check with the GNU server folks to get access to be able to configure stuff. I'll do some research on who to bug for this. Thanks, Vaibhaw On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Don't we have a formal unit-test/review cycle around the commits we > > make into the code base? > > Not really. Given the small amount of committers, it wasn't > necessary. Bernd is working on his sub-projects within the > repository, and this is just fine. The same for Peter and Deri. I > was handling the rest, fixing `global' glitches here and there. Since > I'm no longer actively maintaining groff, the glitches become more > visible. We need someone who is going to handle this... Basically > for license issues, Ingo won't do that, which is a pity, but we have > to accept. > > > Also do we have any test suites around major packages that can > > quickly sanitize our checkins? Or an automated build and test > > system? > > I fully agree that it would be extremely helpful to have both! I > invite you to work on this – it would be a good start to get > acquainted with the overall structure of groff without getting `dirty > fingers' too early, so to say. > > > Werner >