[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Regression test rater

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Regression test rater
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:03:35 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
To: "Janek Warchol" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Devel" <address@hidden>; "LilyPond User Group" <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater

----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek Warchol" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: "LilyPond User Group" <address@hidden>; "Devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
First of all, thanks to those who have spent time and energy rating the
regression test at - we're very
close to having a rating for all the tests.

"LilyPond Regression Test Rater
Well - believe it or not, either you've reviewed ALL the LilyPond
regtests, in which case thanks and please take a well earned rest, or
other reviewers have given us good enough coverage already."

wow!  Kudos!

Don't get too excited. It's a bug - it looks like every regtest has received a single rating, but we're going for 4 per regtest, to get a good average. I'll fix it tomorrow....

Phil Holmes

Kind-of fixed. The way the files are presented is aimed at ensuring no-one rates a regtest more than once, and that they get the least-rated files presented to them in a random order. The only way I seem to be able to get this to work is with nested SQL statements, and this is quite slow. The alternative would be to make it simpler, so that users simply get files which they haven't rated, with no ordering apart from that. However, the downside of this is that we may get lots of files with 4 ratings, but some remain with only 1 until we've done the lot. Let me know what you'd prefer, fellow raters.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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