Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 14:50:19, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn <v...@lyx.org> > Op 5-8-2013 14:37, Kornel Benko schreef: > > > > Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 08:22:19, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > <skost...@lyx.org> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org> wrote: > > > > > > Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 08:01:08, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > > > > <skost...@lyx.org> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Sorry, I meant "This is also a test for lyx2lyx, isn't it?" > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> My opinion is that we should update those documents. I agree > > that it > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > attic is just garbage and it is somewhat absurd that test > > should fail > > > > > > > > > > > >> > because of some contents in there. Please create proper tests for > > > > > > > > > > > >> > things you want to test and do not impose some future maintenance > > > > > > > > > > > >> > burden like "we should keep stuff in attic up-to-date". > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> OK. Attached is a patch. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not check earlier? > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, that is better. I think you can commit that (if you agree with > > > > > it). Both Vincent and Pavel are in favor of not testing attic. > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > I do not agree. We should check attic too IMHO (or else do not provide > > it). > > > > Therefore I prefer you to commit :) > > > > Kornel > > > > If you would ask me, I would veto any decision to force a check of the > attic documents. I totally agree with Pavel that it is rather stupid to > maintain documents that we have declared obsolete.
And I think, they may show a problem. Sorry for being stupid.
> The problem here is that it is not clear what is being tested. You seem
> to have the idea that you're testing LyX using the docs.
That is not what I am after. I want also to test for regressions.
This may be a problem of lyx, or of lyx2lyx or whatever.
> However, if
> they were proper tests, the documents should never change unless LyX's
> behaviour changes.
In attic not even then.
> This is not the case here. The docs are constantly
> updated, by developers, by translators etc. If a document got broken by
> some exotic combination of preamble changes, change tracking, and maybe
> some asian characters, the tests suddenly tells us that LyX is broken,
> while LyX didn't change.
The test only shows that the compilation of this document is broken.
> I don't like to have to fix the chinese documents to be able to still
> use the tests. Or to fix the preamble of the obsoleted polish math
> manual, because otherwise the tests don't pass.
Sure, valid point. But we are providing lyx also for chinese/polish language.
And it would be nice to have at least our documents compilable.
> Vincent
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
