On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:54 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:23 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > >> > I would be interested in your feedback. > >> > >> Not having run any of this, my immediate response would that it's not > >> running 'make doc' AFAICS. > > > > For changes to the code, it should be irrelevant to run make doc: the > > regression test should cover all the behaviors we care about from a > > programming perspective. > > It would be nice if you considered asking questions instead of just > assuming that our established procedures do not make sense and are not > actually rooted in any relevant experience. > > We had a considerable amount of documentation building failures due to > "code-only" changes that "couldn't possibly" affect the doc build. To a > good degree this is because the in-code documentation (like of > properties, music functions and a whole bunch of stuff ending up in the > Internals Reference) is run through various interpreters of Texinfo.
I think we could and should run the documentation as part of the regtests. > > The time that David quotes for 'make doc' (~40 minutes) sounds wrong. > > > > $ ls -1 input/regression/*.ly|wc > > 1347 1347 55843 > > > > $ grep @lilypond $(find Documentation/ -name '*.*tely' | grep -v > > 'Documentation/[a-z][a-z]/')|wc > > 1828 1938 136964 > > > > Building the docs should take about 1.5x the time of building the > > regtests. lilypond-book uses a shared database for snippets across all > > languages, so there should be neglible additional cost for the rest of > > the languages. > > Assuming that all translations are kept at exactly the same level and > the example code is not at all adapted to the language in question in > lyrics and code comments. > > And assuming that our regtests make up 40% of the LilyPond material in > the documentation and are not getting recompiled as part of including > them into the various forms of the documentation. > > Since the documentation graphics are produced in PNG format for HTML > inclusion and in PDF format for PDF inclusion, that seems audacious. I don't understand you; what seems audacious? I think the runtime of make doc is off by a factor of about 5, which could be explained if somehow each language recompiles the snippets afresh. You seem dismissive of my analysis, so I guess you don't want to look into this further? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
