lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Handling problems with patches after the patch is pushed


From: Jonas Hahnfeld
Subject: Re: Handling problems with patches after the patch is pushed
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 19:58:50 +0200
User-agent: Evolution 3.36.2

Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2020, 19:43 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Dear team,
> > 
> > I've been verifying issues from 2.21.1.
> > 
> > This has raised a need for clarification about how we handle issues
> > once they have been pushed.
> > 
> > Consider issue 5890: 
> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5890
> > 
> > 
> > The issue was fixed and a solution was pushed.
> > 
> > Then, Dan recognized that there was another warning that either showed
> > up in the patch or was not fixed by the patch.  So he posted an
> > excellent comment pointing out the problem.
> > 
> > So now, we have a situation where there is a closed issue with status
> > fixed, and a request for a change simultaneously.  I don't know how to
> > resolve this.
> > 
> > It seems to me that there are at least two possibilities for how this
> > should be handled.
> > 
> > 1) Once an issue is accepted and pushed, if there are problems
> > resulting from the issue, a new issue should be created.  This lets
> > the original issue stand as fixed.
> 
> Seems appropriate here.
> 
> > 2) Once an issue is accepted and pushed, if there are problems
> > resulting from the issue, the patch should be reverted, the issue
> > should be reopened, and the comments should be added to the issue
> > discussion.
> 
> I don't think reopening makes a lot of sense: I'd also open a new issue
> here and post a reference to the new issue, possibly with a note which
> version is affected from the revert.  Ongoing information then in the
> new issue.
> 
> > Every problematic commit I've seen as I've worked on verifying issues
> > for 2.20, 2.21, and 2.19 has resulted from adding comments after an
> > issue is closed.  I think we should have a policy asking that we
> > implement either 1 or 2 above.
> 
> New issue + crossreference would be my suggestion.

+1 to all three replies.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]