Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

[Łukasz Czerwiński]

On 25 April 2012 14:52, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

(...)

To me, that does not look like you particularly value getting a review.
You have not fixed a single thing I pointed out.  You have not checked
your submission yourself for the problems.
> I didn't notice that comment. I'm not used yet to checking comments on

> Google Code.

You got the respective messages by personal mail as well unless
something went very wrong.

I have never ever get an email from Google Code. I have just checked that triple. That's the reason for ignoring your comments. I'm sorry that my new patch made you run your tests twice to give me the same list of errors...

 

Do you run tests for each patch uploaded to Rietveld?

>     Code reviews take time, effort, and diligence.  Patch testing can
>     be done by yourself easily.  If it isn't, it again takes time,
>     effort, and diligence.
>
>     It is a matter of courtesy not to waste those lightly, and treat
>     the resources of your coworkers with the respect you want to have
>     them treat yours.
>
>
> For me it sounds like blaming me that I'm a beginner developer on
> Lilypond project, so my work isn't as optimized as it should be.

No, it is blaming you for ignoring feedback and mails sent to you with
reviews.

As I explained above, I didn't know that you have run tests and wrote a comment. And it was a really big unkind surprise, that my patch caused any problems - I thought that it would be simple and without any glitches.

This is not motivating.  And it does not help if the work gets ignored

and one gets called a bugbear for it, to boot.

I'm really sorry for that. 

> It's not nice for me, really, and it doesn't encourage me to submit my
> patches either.
>
> I'd like to know how to run regtests. Should I
> follow: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/regtest-comparison
>
> and compare all those tests that differ?

Yes, that is the respective instruction.  You get a visual comparison
for the tests that differ significantly.

Ok, thank you. But compiling and running regtests took approx. 2.5 hours. It's very long...

Now I have them, but don't know, how to read the details. Could you give me some tips what those numbers in HTML from the attachment are? Probably some distances, but why there are 7 times: Stem: 1.00000 and then Barline, while there are only 4 notes before the first barline?

Łukasz

system	output	orphan	geo
1	0.000000	0.000000	29.133317
1			Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, BarLine: 1.000000, BarLine: 1.000000, BarLine: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, Stem: 1.000000, SustainPedal: 0.564575, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, NoteHead: 0.360337, SustainPedal: 0.304886, SustainPedal: 0.304886, SustainPedal: 0.284560, NoteHead: 0.240224, SustainPedal: 0.189199, SustainPedal: 0.136597, NoteHead: 0.120112, SustainPedal: 0.094333, Beam: 0.085016, Beam: 0.040775, StaffSymbol: 0.002743, Stem: 0.000024

pedal-ped.compare.jpeg
Description: JPEG image

pedal-ped.png
Description: PNG image