2012/1/30 Graham Percival :
> I think there's confusion between Patchy staging-merge and Patchy
> test-patches.
I don't feel confused at all, don't worry about it.
>> i decided to pause my other Lily work and focus on improving
>> Patchy and our development workflow. I took the approach of solvi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:56:08PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 2012/1/30 Graham Percival :
> > that's ALREADY how it works for the staging-merge.
>
> I guess i mean something different than you do when i say "everything
> gets done automatically".
I think there's confusion between Patchy stagin
> I reworded the text and changed the example. It should now be
> clearer from both text and picture.
Yes, thanks.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: "Janek Warchoł"
To: "Graham Percival"
Cc: "David Kastrup" ;
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
2012/1/30 Graham Percival :
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:37:58PM +0100
2012/1/30 Graham Percival :
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:37:58PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> 2012/1/29 David Kastrup :
>> > So seriously: this needs to move to a different computer if LilyPond
>> > development is of concern to you all.
>>
>> My work on Patchy (to make it more foolproof and more
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Let me just quote one item by screenshot [...]
>
> This looks excellent. However, I don't understand the last sentence.
> What do you mean with `not transferred'?
I reworded the text and changed the example. It should now be clearer
from both text and picture.
<>
--
> Let me just quote one item by screenshot [...]
This looks excellent. However, I don't understand the last sentence.
What do you mean with `not transferred'?
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mai
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 04:39:31PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
> > My other current concern is to wonder whether lots of people trying to
> > get patchy running might not collide with each other.
I don't think so; once the first set of commits were pushed to
master, I w
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> My other current concern is to wonder whether lots of people trying to
> get patchy running might not collide with each other. As I understand
> it, the key patchy function is to pull patches from staging,
The current state of staging. It does not test individually.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; "David Kastrup"
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:35:24PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
Origi
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> [Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb]
>>
>>> It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading
>>> the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of
>>> the feature make sense to you.
>>
>> It was really good that you have been a
> [Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb]
>
>> It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading
>> the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of
>> the feature make sense to you.
>
> It was really good that you have been a pain in the neck, since your
>
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>>> I a
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:35:24PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Original Message - From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
>
> >Nope. It uses whatever repository
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:07:44PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
> > "smtp_command: msmtp -C ~/.msmtp-patchy -t" means nothing to me.
>
> That is command for mailing the completion message somewhere. I have no
> idea what msmtp is supposed to be,
ah yes, I forgot about
Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
"Phil Holmes" writes:
I assume it uses the "normal" git cache on my computer
Nope. It uses whatever
On 2012-01-30 12:59, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:47:11PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
The test-patches.py script can likely make use of the techniques in
lilypond-patchy-staging.ly with regard to doing an offside build with a
defined starting point n
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> I assume it uses the "normal" git cache on my computer
Nope. It uses whatever repository you specify in the LILYPOND_GIT
environment variable.
> - is there any danger if this is also my dev machine with other
> changed files in the git filesystem (e.g. the LSR copies, f
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "David Kastrup"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:59:57PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:59:57PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Don't get confused here. Don't scare people away from doing the
> > staging-merge by talking about test-patches.py.
>
> I am not sure what the problem is with anybody else running it.
ditto, other th
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:47:11PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The test-patches.py script can likely make use of the techniques in
>> lilypond-patchy-staging.ly with regard to doing an offside build with a
>> defined starting point not relying on whatever happens to b
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:47:11PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> The test-patches.py script can likely make use of the techniques in
> lilypond-patchy-staging.ly with regard to doing an offside build with a
> defined starting point not relying on whatever happens to be checked out
> in the main rep
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:37:58PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 2012/1/29 David Kastrup :
> > So seriously: this needs to move to a different computer if LilyPond
> > development is of concern to you all.
>
> My work on Patchy (to make it more foolproof and more
> operator-friendly, i.e.
> 'run-a
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2012/1/29 David Kastrup :
>> So seriously: this needs to move to a different computer if LilyPond
>> development is of concern to you all.
>
> My work on Patchy (to make it more foolproof and more
> operator-friendly, i.e.
> 'run-a-script-and-everything-gets-done-automatic
2012/1/29 David Kastrup :
> So seriously: this needs to move to a different computer if LilyPond
> development is of concern to you all.
My work on Patchy (to make it more foolproof and more
operator-friendly, i.e.
'run-a-script-and-everything-gets-done-automatically') will
unfortunately take some
Colin Campbell writes:
> On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Note that this does _not_ mean regtests and doc builds: we have
>> automatisms for that. It means running your own files that use this
>> feature, and reading the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new
>>
On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko.
Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward
_automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a
compilation/testing error.
Humpf.
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> [Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb]
>
>> It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading
>> the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of
>> the feature make sense to you.
>
> It was really good that you have been a pain in
[Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb]
> It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading
> the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of
> the feature make sense to you.
It was really good that you have been a pain in the neck, since your
patch causes
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko.
>>
>> Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward
>> _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a
>> compilation/testing error.
>
> Humpf. I wasn't fully aware of this
>> OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko.
>
> Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward
> _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a
> compilation/testing error.
Humpf. I wasn't fully aware of this automatism.
OK, will apply man
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So check it out at least once it is in Patch-review orderly. That
>> means that it is regtest-clean, but that does not mean that a
>> feature change will make its main users happy.
>
> OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko.
Same thing. Once i
> So check it out at least once it is in Patch-review orderly. That
> means that it is regtest-clean, but that does not mean that a
> feature change will make its main users happy.
OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko.
> And I might point out that it was you who _repe
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I am not sure whether the q stuff should be slated for 2.16. It
>> greatly simplifies things and decreases potential for problems, but
>> I don't see people reporting any test results, and it certainly has
>> seen less user contact than my totally new code.
>
> As soon
> I am not sure whether the q stuff should be slated for 2.16. It
> greatly simplifies things and decreases potential for problems, but
> I don't see people reporting any test results, and it certainly has
> seen less user contact than my totally new code.
As soon it is in master, I'll check it.
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:34:45PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Patchy has been running for about 6 hours on my laptop trying to get the
>> current staging (which is one trivial commit ahead of master) checked.
>> And is still on it.
>
> ??? if you look in the build d
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:34:45PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Patchy has been running for about 6 hours on my laptop trying to get the
> current staging (which is one trivial commit ahead of master) checked.
> And is still on it.
??? if you look in the build dir, what logs does it have? I
mea
On Jan 29, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
>
>
>> James writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan
James writes:
Hello,
On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Janek Warchoł writes:
Keeping the staging-merge goin
James writes:
> Hello,
>
> On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Janek Warchoł writes:
>>
Keeping the staging-merge going would be about five people
committing to 50€ a month. That is, of course, not enough for me to
live on. It merely means that taking on this du
David,
On 29 January 2012 08:48, David Kastrup wrote:
> James writes:
>
>> --snip--
>> james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh
>> remote: Counting objects: 83, done.
>> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done.
>> remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0)
>>
James writes:
> --snip--
> james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh
> remote: Counting objects: 83, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done.
> remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0)
> Unpacking objects: 100% (57/57), done.
> From ssh://git.sv.gnu.or
James writes:
> However when I run patchy I am getting
>
> --snip--
> james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh
> remote: Counting objects: 83, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done.
> remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0)
> Unpacking objects: 100
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:10:16AM +, James wrote:
> Initialized empty Git repository in
> /home/james/Desktop/patchy/lilypond-autobuild/.git/
> fatal: attempt to fetch/clone from a shallow repository
> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
It wants to have a full
git clone git://git.sv
Hello,
On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>>> Keeping the staging-merge going would be about five people
>>> committing to 50€ a month. That is, of course, not enough for me to
>>> live on. It merely means that taking on this duty will not further
>>> re
Janek Warchoł writes:
>> Keeping the staging-merge going would be about five people
>> committing to 50€ a month. That is, of course, not enough for me to
>> live on. It merely means that taking on this duty will not further
>> reduce the amount of time I can spend on LilyPond in total.
>
> T
2012/1/24 David Kastrup :
> I'll hopefully will have received a new laptop by then, but it needs
> more setup work than the last one (I can't just take over the hard disk
> like previously, as it is ATA->SATA).
>
> It will be a Core duo, but still not really fast. Obviously putting
> myself respon
2012/1/24 Graham Percival :
> In order to reduce our bus factor[1] -- especially considering the
> distinctly non-zero possibility that I'll be gone at the end of
> March -- somebody else needs to run the Patchy staging-merge
> script. To make this more presssing, I am refusing to run this
> scrip
Graham Percival writes:
> In order to reduce our bus factor[1] -- especially considering the
> distinctly non-zero possibility that I'll be gone at the end of
> March -- somebody else needs to run the Patchy staging-merge
> script. To make this more presssing, I am refusing to run this
> script
2012/1/24 Graham Percival :
> 1. more people need to know how to run the script.
> (it's not hard; far easier than setting up apache)
I'm working on Patchy with Julien. Please be patient - i have a few
exams on university (last one on February 2nd).
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:08:21PM +0100,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:08:21PM +0100, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> >2. it would be good to have something in the CG about Patchy.
>
> ...you can do this.
I have 3.5 hours remaining until Jan 29. Given how often we have
emergencies come up, I think I need to reserve my time for those.
If no
1. more people need to know how to run the script.
(it's not hard; far easier than setting up apache)
I can do this if...
2. it would be good to have something in the CG about Patchy.
...you can do this.
I also think that Patchy needs to be part of the LilyPond source.
Cheers,
MS
__
In order to reduce our bus factor[1] -- especially considering the
distinctly non-zero possibility that I'll be gone at the end of
March -- somebody else needs to run the Patchy staging-merge
script. To make this more presssing, I am refusing to run this
script myself after 29 Jan 2012.
[1] http:
53 matches
Mail list logo
