checking 2240 (was: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent)

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:35:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> So please accept my apologies that I can't defend this patch further
> today.  It does not mean that I am not serious about it, and I
> definitely believe that if Graham double-checks the comments on this
> patch, he'll find the reason for our difference in test results.

We seem to have a failure to communicate here.  I shall be blunt,
although I am not angry with you.

I will not be doing any manual investigations about 2240 (or any
other patch, for that matter).

Part of the reason that we're in this miss is that we keep on
saying "oh, I'll do it manually just this once".  If we had gotten
serious about automating development tasks a year ago, we'd have
saved at least 100 hours of developer time.  I'm totally serious
about that estimate; if anything I think I'm being conservative.
I will therefore not do any manual fiddling around to test a patch
or staging.  Anything that fails the automatic process is
rejected; if the process needs to be fixed, then fix the process.

With respect to this patch, you have 4 options:
- modify Patchy to do the appropriate build stuff.
- recruit somebody else to modify Patchy for you.
  (I don't want to put Mike on the spot, but a week ago I sent
  him this same email and he fixed the relevant problem in Patchy,
  so he might be willing to modify Patchy for this)
- skip the review process by manually marking it as Patch-review
  yourself.  I do not object to this, but be aware that you are
  therefore vouching for the patch in a much more serious way.
- abandon the patch.

Choice is yours.  (although of course there is no problem if
nothing happens on this for a few days while you do other things)

- Graham