On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote: >> 2009/9/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Of course, if someone goes >> > around modifying the templates in lilypond-book.py, 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. > > Cheers, > - 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!
Hi Graham, Would it work if we just calculated the md5 hash for everything *except* the preamble? Of course, this would still break automatic regtest comparisons with any past versions, but it might be more "future proof". I'll take a better look at lilypond-book if this sounds like a good idea. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
