On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Jean-Marc LASGOUTTES <[email protected]> wrote: > Pavel Sanda <[email protected]> writes: > >> John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >>> I was wondering, would you prefer it if I could submit future updates >>> to keytest as a set of smaller patches, rather than one big one? >> >> i would prefer to give you a commit access. >> >> its pita to apply patches with new files and changed svn properties >> because one needs to do this manually. short peek in the archives >> shows you are at least two years around and contributed 152k of >> scripts into kesytest. i think thats enough. JMarc? > > John, do you want to have access?
It sound like a good idea. I don't think keytest is getting much benefit from version control as it is. With commit access I could submit 100 atomic changes without flooding lyx-devel with messages about a tool that currently I think only I use. I understand that with SVN you can easily give me access just to the keytest directory. Should we do that? I don't think there is much benefit to giving me write access out side that directory as I think at this stage I should run everything outside keytest past someone else anyway. -- Also I Should add the recipes for reproducing bugs that keytest generates to SVN, so that I could do a regression test type of thing. The most natural way of doing this would be to add one file per bug, but I could also use a single file approach and append new bugs to the end. Would this latter approach be preferred so as to limit the number of files that everyone has to check out? -- John C. McCabe-Dansted
