On Jun 30, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >> http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_4.html >> >> ** Proposal summary >> >> What went well, what went badly? This is a discussion only; it >> will be summarized, and we will refer back to it in future policy >> decisions, but no new policies will be decided in this round. >> >> We’ll have (at least) two sections: one for facts that anybody >> considers relevant, and one for thoughts and commentary. >> > > Overall, I think this cycle took too long. > > We should strive to have policies that make each development release > be a worthy stable candidate. That means -for example- being serious > about > > * changes passing through the regtest > * bugfixes and features always having a test to check against
I agree, and I'd go further to add that one of the problems with the 2.13 process towards the end was a difficulty in anticipating what to make regtests look like so that they tested all possible contingencies. In order to make sure that the regtests are robust w/o forcing each change to go through 5 hours of regression testing, I propose that before each minor release, a large regression test is run on a suite of real-life pieces followed by a pixel comparison. This'd take a while, but it'd provide a periodic check to nip problems in the bud. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
