I've verified all of the issues except those marked for 2.19.21.
Thanks,
Carl
On 5/12/15 8:30 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote:
>I've cleared a lot of the issues to verify, but there are a number that
>I've marked fixed, and our protocol is that someone els
I've cleared a lot of the issues to verify, but there are a number that
I've marked fixed, and our protocol is that someone else should verify
these.
http://philholmes.net/lilypond/git/ can be used to help find commitishes.
Please could someone have a go at some of the issues to ve
gt;
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
No issues to verify in 2.15.32 list, too, so i hope we'll release new
Candidate when 2356 is counted down.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:00:18PM +, Graham Percival wrote:
> We now have zero Critical issues, so I'd like to have another
> release canddiate. Unfortunately, there is still at least one
> "issue to verify" in the list for 2.15.31, so I will not make a
> release.
>
> http://code.google.com
We now have zero Critical issues, so I'd like to have another
release canddiate. Unfortunately, there is still at least one
"issue to verify" in the list for 2.15.31, so I will not make a
release.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
- Graham
_
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 11:22:44AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> It is usually the responsibility of the person marking the issue fixed
> to also add the fixed_xx_xx label and mention the commit, but if that
> has not been done for some reason, I think we have keeping this info
> somewhat accurate
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: release blocked due to issues to verify
"Phil Holmes" writes:
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Cc: "Phil Holmes&q
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Graham Percival"
> To:
> Cc: "Phil Holmes"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:59 AM
> Subject: release blocked due to issues to verify
>
>
>> It might be nice to
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:13:53AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>
> Those are all patches which only actually appear in 15.29
Then label them as fixed_2_15_29.
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing lis
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To:
Cc: "Phil Holmes"
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: release blocked due to issues to verify
It might be nice to have a release later today, as there are 5
Critical fixes either pushed or
It might be nice to have a release later today, as there are 5
Critical fixes either pushed or waiting to be pushed.
Unfortunately,
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
shows some issues which do *not* contain "fixed_2_15_29", so I
will not make a release.
In case you forgot, the r
t I'll try to get through as many as I
>> > can between now and then.
>>
>> tested? Nope, verification *is* testing. Once 2149 is handled,
>> there is no need for Bug Squad members to do anything with the
>> "issues to verify" list until 2.15.28 is out
an between now and
> > then.
>
> tested? Nope, verification *is* testing. Once 2149 is handled,
> there is no need for Bug Squad members to do anything with the
> "issues to verify" list until 2.15.28 is out.
OK, tha
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:40:49PM +, Colin Hall wrote:
>>
>> Looks like Dave has marked all the outstanding fixes as verified
>> while I was busy testing 1416.
>
> almost; there's still 2149.
You could have stowed the whip for a few minutes. There is a new patch
t; from Saturday but I'll try to get through as many as I can between now and
> then.
tested? Nope, verification *is* testing. Once 2149 is handled,
there is no need for Bug Squad members to do anything with the
"issues to verify" list until 2.15.28 is out.
> Graham, wh
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:14:52PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > At the time of this writing, this means that if *ANY* issue on this
> > list:
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
> > does *NOT* say "fixed_2_15_28", there will be no release.
>
> "ve
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 02:14:41PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Programmers gives things fixed_* tags.
>
> You wish.
Heh. Normative vs. descriptive. :)
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:14:52PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > At the time of this writing, this means that if *ANY* issue on this
>> > list:
>> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
>> > does *NOT* say "fixed_2_15_28"
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:14:52PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > At the time of this writing, this means that if *ANY* issue on this
> > list:
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=7
> > does *NOT* say "fixed_2_15_28", there will be no release.
>
> "
Now that the Patchy staging-merge is running ok, it's time to
force the next issue:
I will not be making any more releases, stable or unstable,
as long as there are issues to verify relating to a
previously-released version.
At the time of this writing, this means that if *ANY* iss
> >
> > They were initially started by developers, and I think they're
> > still a good idea. I think you should add that label for anything
> > that's missing it -- as long as you keep the "issues to verify"
> > list at 0 entries after a GUB r
developers need
> > it?
> > Should we require these labels be assigned?
>
> They were initially started by developers, and I think they're
> still a good idea. I think you should add that label for anything
> that's missing it -- as long as you keep the "i
On 11-10-28 07:51 AM, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote:
I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed -
otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and
find they don't work.
Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad,
n't work.
> Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad, I mean. Do developers need it?
> Should we require these labels be assigned?
They were initially started by developers, and I think they're
still a good idea. I think you should add that label for anything
that's m
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote:
> I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed -
> otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and
> find they don't work.
Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad, I mean. Do developers need it?
Should we requ
- Original Message -
From: "Dmytro O. Redchuk"
To: "Graham Percival"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: issues to verify
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 07:23 Graham Percival wrote:
Dmytro,
Hi there,
I see 40 issues to verify. Some of them are for
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 07:23 Graham Percival wrote:
> Dmytro,
Hi there,
> I see 40 issues to verify. Some of them are for 2.15.15, which is
> ok since it's only been 3 days since that went up, but I also see
> a bunch for 2.15.14 and 2.15.13.
>
> It's your job to eithe
Dmytro,
I see 40 issues to verify. Some of them are for 2.15.15, which is
ok since it's only been 3 days since that went up, but I also see
a bunch for 2.15.14 and 2.15.13.
It's your job to either:
1. make the bug squad do their job,
2. do their job for them, or
3. ask for mor
Hi Carl.
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Sorensen"
To: "Phil Holmes" ;
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Issues to verify
On 12/14/10 10:26 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote:
There are currently 8 issues to verify that could and sh
On 12/14/10 5:16 PM, "Patrick McCarty" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> I've asked Patrick for a regtest for 1407 so that somebody can validate that
>> issue.
>
> I've added a comment to 1407 about the process for verification. If
> nobody wants to tac
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 12/14/10 10:26 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote:
>
>> There are currently 8 issues to verify that could and should have been
>> verified. I've asked the bug squad to check them, and I've been over them
On 12/14/10 10:26 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote:
> There are currently 8 issues to verify that could and should have been
> verified. I've asked the bug squad to check them, and I've been over them
> myself and I don't have the skills to check them. Could any d
There are currently 8 issues to verify that could and should have been
verified. I've asked the bug squad to check them, and I've been over them
myself and I don't have the skills to check them. Could any developer who
can, please look at http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/is
Graham Percival schreef:
"Issues to Verify" lists all issues that are
- fixed: I should check them in the latest lily and mark verified
- duplicate: I should... what? Ignore them and leave them in the list?
- invalid: I should... what?
If I ignore the duplicate/invalid bug rep
"Issues to Verify" lists all issues that are
- fixed: I should check them in the latest lily and mark verified
- duplicate: I should... what? Ignore them and leave them in the list?
- invalid: I should... what?
If I ignore the duplicate/invalid bug reports, then eventually we'
35 matches
Mail list logo
