On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:17PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time. I > actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree > anyway instead of removing it and doing the next test from a freshly > created > git clone > directory.
That loses the regtest baseline, and the whole point is to do a regtest comparison. It's certainly possible to move the baseline to a separate directory, remove the current build+src dirs, recreate the build+src dirs from scratch, then move the baseline back into the build dir and make a comparison. ETA: 10 hours for anybody other than Julien, because this touches some dark corners of the build system. > I suppose we'll get to see the proof when this moves to staging. Not quite; staging doesn't do a regtest comparison. We'll see the proof once it's in master and there's a new official GUB release. > So that this does not get needlessly messy in case anything _does_ go > wrong, I am currently in the process of moving the non-controversial > parts of 2240 into staging where they can get advance testing. If there _is_ something wrong with the patch -- and I'm not saying that there is, just that the only evidence I've seen that it's ok comes from your emails -- then the only other testing that staging provides is making sure that the docs compile from scratch. If regtests broke, we wouldn't see that until the official 2.15.28 release. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
