Re: checking 2240

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:17PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time.  I
> actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree
> anyway instead of removing it and doing the next test from a freshly
> created
>   git clone
> directory.

That loses the regtest baseline, and the whole point is to do a
regtest comparison.

It's certainly possible to move the baseline to a separate
directory, remove the current build+src dirs, recreate the
build+src dirs from scratch, then move the baseline back into the
build dir and make a comparison.
ETA: 10 hours for anybody other than Julien, because this touches
some dark corners of the build system.

> I suppose we'll get to see the proof when this moves to staging.

Not quite; staging doesn't do a regtest comparison.  We'll see the
proof once it's in master and there's a new official GUB release.

> So that this does not get needlessly messy in case anything _does_ go
> wrong, I am currently in the process of moving the non-controversial
> parts of 2240 into staging where they can get advance testing.

If there _is_ something wrong with the patch -- and I'm not saying
that there is, just that the only evidence I've seen that it's ok
comes from your emails -- then the only other testing that staging
provides is making sure that the docs compile from scratch.  If
regtests broke, we wouldn't see that until the official 2.15.28
release.

- Graham