On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > Correctness is more important than speed.
Only within reasonable limits. > If you want to improve our speed, then look into the "time" fields > in the regtest comparison. It appears to be currently broken, but > fixing this will likely be a 10-line patch. I didn't know about that; is it in the tracker somewhere? > If you want to improve our memory handling, then look into the > "cells:" fields in the regtest comparison. As far as I know > they're working, but we have no documentation about what they > mean, and the bug squad certainly isn't checking them. This could arguably be mentioned as another issue in the tracker, FWIW... > The best time to notice a drop in speed or memory importance is > before a patch is pushed. The second-best time is after the devel > release immediately following the commit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a more big-picture kind of vision. > Improving the regtest > comparison code and docs will do more in the long term than any > amount of complaining about this specific commit. What are you talking about? I certainly did not complain, and I even less suggested that we should revert this commit. Cheers, Valentin. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
