Re: makelsr

[James Lowe]

Thomas et al.

On 28/12/2018 14:13, David Kastrup wrote:
> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think we need some guidelines in the case a new lsr-snippet is used
> > for the docs.
> > See https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5251/
> >
> > James askes not to run makelsr, because a plethora of changes will
> > clutter the patch-set.
> > OTOH, a patch can't stand alone and can't be applied for testings by
> > reviewers without makelsr. So I voted for doing makelsr.

The patch can be tested with makelsr as 'part' of the test process - 
this is what I have done since I have been testing patches. After every 
./configure, make, make test-baseline and patch apply, I then run a 
makelsr.py before I run a new make, make check and a make doc.

There are two reasons really

1. The Rietveld has no noise in it for others to have to care about

2.it also doesn't cause a problem when I am testing against a current 
master that has, by unfortunate coincidence, just had a patch merged 
that also updated the snippet docs (because it needed a makelstr run 
itself). This would, almost certainly, cause a conflict during testing 
when I tried to merge the newer patch, with its own makelsr included, 
because of all the 'snippet' doc files that would have just been updated 
post older patch - if you see what I mean?

unless anyone else can come up with a more robust method, keeping 
makelesr out of the review and patch to be tested is easier for all. A 
simple - 'requires makelsr run' in the Tracker or Rietveld will alert 
those that want to test the patch themselves that this needs to be done.

regards

James