Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> > http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
>
I failed miserably with email headers trying to reply earlier, sorry. Briefly,
> les-nerides: this is definitely an impr
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:icp0n7$77...@dough.gmane.org...
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:ico0kf$cl...@dough.gmane.org...
I think the best bet is that I'll knock something up and run it over .41
when it arrives. We can then see whether it's of use before working out
whether a
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
les-nerides: this is definitely an improvement. I'm surprised to
see that the old version involved a collision betwee fingering
and a slur in different staves, though! (end
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87y68d9r4v@lola.goethe.zz...
"Phil Holmes" writes:
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
"Phil Holmes" writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
line interfaces get in the way.
H
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>>> The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
>>> line interfaces get in the way.
>>
>> Huh? If you see Ghostscript command line interfaces, you
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
"Phil Holmes" writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
line interfaces get in the way.
Huh? If you see Ghostscript command line interfaces, you are calling
the wrong version of Ghostscr
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
> line interfaces get in the way.
Huh? If you see Ghostscript command line interfaces, you are calling
the wrong version of Ghostscript, or using the wrong options.
For X, there is some executable called
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message news:...
"Graham Percival" wrote in message
news:20101127084430.ga8...@futoi...
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:10:25PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a pixel-by-pixel
comparison, allowing a leeway of 1 in pixel brightness (range
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ;
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: 2.13.40 regtests
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagedi
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
... you're creating 3d images for aliens with eyes arranged
vertically instead of horizontally?
Cheers,
- Graham
___
bug-lilypon
"Graham Percival" wrote in message
news:20101127084430.ga8...@futoi...
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:10:25PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a pixel-by-pixel
comparison, allowing a leeway of 1 in pixel brightness (range is 0
It identified 21 files with chang
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:10:25PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a pixel-by-pixel
> comparison, allowing a leeway of 1 in pixel brightness (range is 0
> It identified 21 files with changes.
Wow, I was expecting much more! In that case, this is definitely
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" wrote in message
> Would anyone like me to put together a web page with them all on, to see if
> it could be useful?
Hi Phil,
nicely done!
As much as I'd hate to install mono on my computer, I'd be happy to
have a look at such
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:ico0kf$cl...@dough.gmane.org...
I think the best bet is that I'll knock something up and run it over .41
when it arrives. We can then see whether it's of use before working out
whether and how to progress it.
Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a
"Graham Percival" wrote in message
news:20101126002715.ga15...@futoi...
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:14:17AM +, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 26 November 2010 00:00, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of time to compare each pair
> of regtest images -- they're named, so
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:22AM -0500, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> The reason I did not do it originally is that it moves the comparison
>> farther away from lilypond itself and pixel-per-pixel changes are not
>> calibrated for the size o
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:22AM -0500, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> The reason I did not do it originally is that it moves the comparison
> farther away from lilypond itself and pixel-per-pixel changes are not
> calibrated for the size of the symbols: a large symbol moving place
> will generate a m
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd guess)
> that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker functionality and did a
> pixel-by-pixel check for image changes. I've done the latter bit in about
> 20 minutes
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:14:17AM +, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 26 November 2010 00:00, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of time to compare each pair
> > of regtest images -- they're named, so you'd be comparing
> > something like 500 pairs of .png images. (N
On 26 November 2010 00:00, Graham Percival wrote:
> Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of time to compare each pair
> of regtest images -- they're named, so you'd be comparing
> something like 500 pairs of .png images. (Neil: were you thinking
> of something else?)
I think this would be very
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:45:36PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd
> guess) that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker
> functionality and did a pixel-by-pixel check for image changes.
Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of
On 25 November 2010 17:45, Phil Holmes wrote:
> It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd guess)
> that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker functionality and did a
> pixel-by-pixel check for image changes. I've done the latter bit in about
> 20 minutes on the
"Neil Puttock" wrote in message
news:aanlktim-yd06h47zrvofpp-_qnrm_rwobnfoutokm...@mail.gmail.com...
On 24 November 2010 15:47, Phil Holmes wrote:
> So if a completely new bit of graphics appears, the regtest checker
> wouldn't
> spot it? Not sure that's too good.
It might not, depending
On 24 November 2010 15:47, Phil Holmes wrote:
> So if a completely new bit of graphics appears, the regtest checker wouldn't
> spot it? Not sure that's too good.
It might not, depending on whether the new grob influences bounding
boxes for other grobs.
> What's the checker written in?
Python:
"Neil Puttock" wrote in message
news:aanlktimwrhxfv1phqy+dz1e3a7hhz3xp1g6of-=pg...@mail.gmail.com...
On 21 November 2010 23:16, Graham Percival
wrote:
Huh. So evidently there's some other reason behind the fix for
this break not being detected? It might be related to the
imagemagick's syntax
On 21 November 2010 23:16, Graham Percival wrote:
> Huh. So evidently there's some other reason behind the fix for
> this break not being detected? It might be related to the
> imagemagick's syntax change:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=908
I don't think this is the probl
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:46:54PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 21. November 2010, um 20:09:12 schrieben Sie:
> > Unfortunately not:
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/precompiled-regress
> > ion-tests "Note: The automatic comparison of the regtests checks
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:52:38PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 21. November 2010, um 13:42:21 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> > I've cast my usual eye over the regtest comparison for 13.40 - the only
> > significant change appears to be with figured-bass-continuation-forbid.log
> > where
Am Sonntag, 21. November 2010, um 13:42:21 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> I've cast my usual eye over the regtest comparison for 13.40 - the only
> significant change appears to be with figured-bass-continuation-forbid.log
> where we've lost the error message. This would appear to be expected, as a
> resu
"Valentin Villenave" wrote in message
news:aanlktimjvrizkapoiva__+2phquq4hid4fngp2og6...@mail.gmail.com...
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> _However_. Shouldn't the regtest comparison for
> figured-bass-continuation-forbid.ly flag the change as well?
I'm not sure I unde
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> _However_. Shouldn't the regtest comparison for
> figured-bass-continuation-forbid.ly flag the change as well?
I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that /disappearing/ errors
should be flagged?
Valentin.
__
I've cast my usual eye over the regtest comparison for 13.40 - the only
significant change appears to be with figured-bass-continuation-forbid.log
where we've lost the error message. This would appear to be expected, as a
result of the fix to the figured bass code resulting from Reinhold's repo
32 matches
Mail list logo
