[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:30:04 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/9/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:
> > Of course, if someone goes
> > around modifying the templates in, all the hashes
> > change, and the comparison does not work anymore.
> Oops, I guess that's me then, since I removed the unused \paper block
> settings without first doing a regtest check (IIRC, I only did a clean
> docs build).
> Graham, I can sort out all the missing comparisons if you'd like to
> get them uploaded somehow.

Doing the comparisons would be tricky; you'd need to fix
lilypond-book, then use the new lilypond-book to generate the
tests for the old version of lilypond, etc.

Personally speaking, I'm not at all concerned about the 2.13.5
test comparisons.  If we can strip out the templates so that the
hashes will be more robust in the future, then I'm totally content
to say "whoops, no comparisons from 2.13.5 to the past.
Volunteers, check the full output for 2.13.5.  Deal with it."

Actually, I'm not even concerned about the current less-robust
hashes.  It's probably a good idea for somebody to check the whole
regtests every 4-5 months _anyway_, so having the comparisons
break when somebody changes the paper settings (which doesn't
happen very often!)  will just force us to solicit volunteers for
this task.

And if nobody volunteers, well, not my problem.  If no user cares
enough about stability to spend 20 minutes looking at regtests
once in a while, then they deserve random breakages.

- Graham "ask not what your engraver can do for you; ask what you
  can do for your engraver" Percival

PS that said, if anybody's interested in hacking away at the
   python scripts, please do!

reply via email to

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