Re: regression tests

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Graham Percival writes:

> And only about 10% regtests are useful *as documentation*.  60 easily
> fits inside 220.  If we missed a few, we can add them.
> Most of the regtests are easily covered by the manual.

Okay, maybe I underestimated the manual.  I took a look at some
interesting ones (feature-wise) and they were all covered in the
manual.

> What's the documentation value of tie-grace.ly ?  It works exactly
> like you'd expect it to work.

This tells you two things: 1) lilypond has this feature, so *that* you
can expect this feature to work.  There are still quite a number of
music notation constructs that just are not implemented yet.  2) the
version of lilypond that this regtest refers to, is not broken.

I agree that from a documentation pov, the two points above are rather
weak, but they are still needed or at leaste valuable for a potential
bug report/feature request.  Consider for example beam-damp.ly.  This
is something that you do not want to have in the documentation, but
you do want a power user to know about this.  Especially if it breaks
in a development version.

> Power-users know how to read the program reference.  They can see the
> features there.
>
> Look, the regression tests are not _intended_ as documentation, and
> they _should not_ be intended as documentation.  They are regression
> tests!

Ok, these are very good points.  I also agree that the new
documentation page is better for new users.  The regression test is
ugly, but that should be fixed, because it's important for developers.
And I would rather have lilypond developer friendly too.  How about if
I add a small link somewhere at the bottom that says `developers/power
user info' to a new page that lists the regession tests and the
comparisons (and ...?)?

> I wish that more users searched the mailist archives, but they
> don't. Useful tips sent to the mailist are essentially lost knowledge;
> that's why I've really been pushing LSR.

Yes.

> Advertising goes in the Examples or in the new "inspirational
> headword" examples that are planned in GDP.

Ok.

> Users report bugs without reading the *manual*.  They're not going to
> check the regtests.

Yes, you're probably right.  Thanks for the explanation!

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org