Wooow, a lot of emails were posted in the last 24 hours :) I'll try to
comment all your important thoughts, but it's possible that I miss one or
two... Anyway:
On 26 April 2012 07:28, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> Some people encourage new contributors. I encourage new
> contributors who want to
Hello,
2012/4/26 Łukasz Czerwiński :
...
>
> On 26 April 2012 09:05, James wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've run patchy-test just now for the three patches outstanding this
>> morning. It's no a big deal, I've just never got round to running the
>> patchy-test scripts (well since the scripts were very first
Hello,
On 26 April 2012 21:38, James wrote:
> No problem, but it doesn't mean that you can just do some code and
> throw it up for review without ANY basic testing your side, it should
> apply to current tree and it should also pass a basic 'make'.
>
Yes, before uploading a patch I make sure t
Hello,
2012/4/26 Łukasz Czerwiński :
>
> Well, LilyDev won't help me - on the server exists an already installed
> system (Linux).
>
> As for Virtualbox, I believe, that without having admin rights I can't
> install it - correct me if I'm wrong.
Well I'm not a *NIX admin - I do have to use 'sudo
- Original Message -
From: Łukasz Czerwiński
To: James
Cc: m...@apollinemike.com ; k-ohara5...@oco.net ; David Kastrup ;
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:41 PM
Subject: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems
Still requires 'someone' to 'do
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> OK. Regtest checking can mean three things. 1) Between releases,
> comparing the output of the regtests with what they looked like before
> and flagging any differences as potential problems. I do this. 2)
> Doing the same thing for patches. Patchy does this, helped b
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:28:54AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> There is no reason whatsoever that this should only be done by a single
> person.
Totally!
> I would expect that _every_ person contributing more than two
> patches per month should be able, after uploading a patch, to be running
>
Graham Percival writes:
> Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
> process. I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
> and whose patches tend to be problematic... but a completely
> automated, objective approach would remove any personal bias.
And those
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:14:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
> > process. I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
> > and whose patches tend to be problematic... but a completely
>
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:14:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > Then we'll have hard numbers on which developers are abusing the
>> > process. I mean, sure, we all know whose patches tend to be great
>> > and whose patches tend to be
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:13:50AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> In fact, if you have to
> do half a dozen of iterations before getting things actually right on
> the somewhat more than superficial level provided by our tests, you'll
> have gained lots of good Karma on the road.
I was thinking tha
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:13:50AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> In fact, if you have to
>> do half a dozen of iterations before getting things actually right on
>> the somewhat more than superficial level provided by our tests, you'll
>> have gained lots of good Karma
On 28 April 2012 10:30, Graham Percival wrote:
> As long as I'm not personally playing nursemaid for people
> who don't run the basic tests
It seems that the whole talk about running tests is only because of me not
running them before uploading my first patches because I didn't know that I
shou
On 26 April 2012 20:41, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
>
> Mike, Graham and David wrote about more or less automatic running of tests
> and presenting only the results, possibly on an unused computer.
>
> I realised that I have a server on Dreamhost that probably could be such a
> computer - there is u
Hello,
On 28 April 2012 23:18, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
> On 28 April 2012 10:30, Graham Percival wrote:
>>
>> As long as I'm not personally playing nursemaid for people
>> who don't run the basic tests
>
>
> It seems that the whole talk about running tests is only because of me not
> running th
Hello,
> How much CPU time and memory would regtests consume?
Depends on how many CPUs you can allocate. You can run reg tests on 1
CPU or xCPUs. You explicitly state the number in your make command
'make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7' test will use 7 CPUs
'make test' just uses 1 CPU (even if you have more
Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> On 28 April 2012 10:30, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>
> As long as I'm not personally playing nursemaid for people
> who don't run the basic tests
>
>
> It seems that the whole talk about running tests is only because of me
> not running them before uploading m
17 matches
Mail list logo
