On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > On 8/31/20 6:27 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> I'm less than sure that the DocBook export we have in stable is really > correct. I think that's part of what got Thibaut working on this: Our > export *isn't* right for current flavors of DocBook. So some of the > regressions may well be fixes. I see, good to know. > > Also, the fixes to regressions > > might be invasive, so why not just fix them before having a big review > > instead of having multiple rounds of reviews and testing and fixes on > > master? > > I think this depends upon what the regression is exactly. Of course, > that can be determined by looking carefully at the test results. But > it's a different question when it's time to do that. I'd let the code > settle, and then when Thibaut thinks we're ready to merge, *then* we > should start running tests and look carefully at the results. That works. So do review, then run tests, then merge. I think partly it depends on what Thibaut thinks would be the most useful to his workflow so that's why I asked when he would prefer. Personally if I did not expect my code to break any tests and it did I would want to figure out why the tests broke. On the other hand, if I did expect my code to break tests (e.g., the output was not correct before anyway), then perhaps they would not be that useful. But I can understand why others would prefer to get a review and then do the tests. > > Further, even if only the docbook tests are failing, the > > underlying regressions could affect other parts of the LyX code (our > > ctests have only small coverage in my opinion). > > Assuming Thibaut is only touching DocBook-related routines, it's > probably only XHTML export that would be affected. Which matters, but, > as I said, much of this may be an improvement. Sounds good. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
