On 25.12.2009, at 15:35, Graham Percival wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 03:05:42PM +0100, James Bailey wrote:
On 25.12.2009, at 14:04, John Mandereau wrote:
In which 2.13 release this bug appeared? A quick bisection
(testing no
more than four 2.13.x versions) should give the answer.
2.13.7. Can you explain this (testing no more than four 2.13.x
versions)
business? I think that would prove very helpful in the future for me.
He's either talking about compiling different versions of lilypond
from git (using git-bisect), which is outside your duties, or
just talking about doing a binary search. i.e.
- test 2.13.5. Is the bug there? If so, divide 5 by 2 and test
2.13.3 (round whatever direction you want)
If the bug isn't there, multiply by 50%: test 2.13.7.
- is it there? If not, divide; if so, multiply.
If the bug was added with equal probability between all 2.13.x
releases, a binary search is much more efficient than starting at
2.13.9 and working backwards. See wikipedia for more info about
searches. :)
Of course, with the regtests available online, you don't even need
to download+run all those 2.13 versions; just clicking through the
various directories will show you the different output.
Cheers,
- Graham
Except this particular issue doesn't show up in the regtest. It only
shows up if you actually compile the file used for the regtest.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
