Hello, On 3 March 2012 09:03, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I'd saw that David and Graham and (i think) Phil and Janek (?) had >> been running patchy so figured it was now covered > > There is staging-patchy. It does not require manual work, just > processing power, but lots of that. It is not bothered if people run it > in parallel (the worst that happens is that cycles are wasted). > > I still run it occasionally, and it is rather a holdup on my setup. > > Then there is test-patchy. It takes less processing power, but the > results need to be evaluated manually and an appropriate comment made. > It does not matter if people run it in parallel, but it is a bit of a > nuisance if the manual commenting overlaps. > > staging-patchy and test-patchy currently use the same testing directory > (why?), so it will lead to problems if both are run on the same machine > at the same time. > >> I still have some fundamental questions about the scripts. >> >> Patchy actually seems to be two things not one and I am still unclear >> on this aspect. There is a 'script' that checks Patch-new against >> current master and there is a 'script' that merges staging with >> master. Is it required (desired) to run both aspects for me or should >> I just be doing one of them? > > lilypond-patchy-staging (?) is the more important one since it takes > more processing power and less manual intervention. >
OK thanks, I'll focus on that one. -- -- James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel