[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

From: Łukasz Czerwiński
Subject: Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:36:59 +0200


On 26 April 2012 21:38, James <address@hidden> wrote:
No problem, but it doesn't mean that you can just do some code and
throw it up for review without ANY basic testing your side, it should
apply to current tree and it should also pass a basic 'make'.

Yes, before uploading a patch I make sure that it will apply and compile. Now I also know that I should be aware that patchy is run on each patch set, so I must check the result of it before uploading the next patch set.

> Mike, Graham and David wrote about more or less automatic running of tests
> and presenting only the results, possibly on an unused computer.
> I realised that I have a server on Dreamhost that probably could be such a
> computer - there is unlimited disk space and unlimited bandwidth (to some
> extend, I guess, but that will be enough for us). Now I'm trying to compile
> Lilypond on it - there are some libraries missing, I'm in progress of
> figuring out whether I can install it locally (it's a shared server, not a
> private one, so I don't have root on it).

Did you look at LilyDev? This is specifically aimed at LilyPond
developers who don't have the time or inclination to set up their dev

It's got pretty much all you need right there and yuo can be up and
running in a few minutes (once you have it installed).

LilyDev is a pre-built Ubuntu dist with all the dependencies. I run it
in a VM (I use KVM at home but Virtual Box at work). It might be


The instructions have been updates significantly but I am sure you can
understand how to install an OS using an ISO file.

Well, LilyDev won't help me - on the server exists an already installed system (Linux). 

As for Virtualbox, I believe, that without having admin rights I can't install it - correct me if I'm wrong.

> On 26 April 2012 11:43, James <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Still requires 'someone' to 'do' something and then say 'LGTM' and I
>> don't know what the feed back has been with regard to the
>> is this just not the same thing in essence?
> Woow, what's that: for? Is it
> for rating regression tests or for rating that particular result of a
> particular test run?

Phil does a pixel comparison reg test between *releases*


and has some programming experience so this is an offshoot of what he
does with the project anyway and he offered this as a service, I am
sure he will fill you in (I cannot find he original email I think he
sent out).

Do you mean Phil Holmes?


reply via email to

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