Re: [frogs] ready to (re)start

[Graham Percival <graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:51:06PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Since I *was* able to compile the binary successfully, 

we don't know that.

> all of this continued trauma is only for documentation edits, right?

Doc edits and checking regtests.  Carl's not going to be amused if
you send him patches which break other stuff, and if he doesn't
notice that other stuff breaks (which is possible, since he's
dealing with 10 other patches each week), then other developers
are going to be even more not-amused if you break regtests on
devel.

And if I fail to notice the breakage and release 2.13.x with
newly-introduced regressions, then all the users who are engraving
with 2.13.x against my express recommendations are going to be
even *more* not-amused, and we'll get more flames about the
development process.


.... on second thought, that actually _does_ sound amusing.  To me.

> I don't want to do doc edits anyway. [Sorry, Graham.]
> If I do any, I certainly don't have to compile the docs: I'll just send them to somebody else [Graham?] to patch in.

A while ago, I said that you didn't have to check your doc edit
work -- Carl was the one who said that you needed to make doc.
If you still have that email, look up the file+line(s) I told you
to fix.


However, you really should get the "make check" or "make test" or
whatever working, and this uses the same make stuff as "make doc"
in the regtests.  So I really think we should track down this
libjpeg stuff anyway.

Cheers,
- Graham

---
----
Join the Frogs!