У сб, 2010-01-16 у 15:33 +0000, Graham Percival пише:
> It would be nice if somebody could check the regtest comparison...
> it's too late to recall 2.13.11 if it broke anything, but if it *did*
> break something, the sooner we find out about it, the faster we can
> fix it.
>
> More info in the Contributor's Guide 7.4 Checking and verifying issues
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/checking-and-verifying-issues
>
>
> After that, it would be nice if somebody could check all the regtests.
> One person has been doing it, but there's no guarantee that he's
> found everything. Again, the sooner we find out if something broke,
> the faster it will be to fix.
I feel i could try, but i feel a bit stupid, too.
-----------------------
7.6 Finding the cause of a regression
[...]
This is a job that non-programmers can do; once a problematic commit is
identified, the programmers’ job is much easier. In fact, for most
regression bugs, the majority of the time is spent simply finding the
problematic commit.
-----------------------
Please, which job, _what_ can i do?-) What should i do to "identify"
"problematic commit"?
Yes, i do have a web browser and email client :O)
Possibly, i still don't understand how to use them, please give me a
glue. Thanks!
(Can this regtests checking be automated?.. Yes, i do have
bash/sed/awk/python and some idea how to use them, it this can help.
Yes, i'm lazy too, but not so delicious and bad, probably.)
> - Graham
ps. And --- again --- thank you all who makes lilypond better.
And, again, sorry for the noise.
--
Dmytro O. Redchuk
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
