Wow, bad last sentence there. I meant to say that I'm actively following
HEAD, so go ahead and make any changes and I'll merge them into my local
repository. No need to worry about clashing.
Thanks!
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jaren Stangret wrote:
> Erik,
>
> There are changes coming,
Erik,
There are changes coming, but I can't give an ETA. I finally have a
uniform "feel" to the changes I want to incorporate. The biggest hurdle
right now is 'test_flac.sh'. It is a BIG script with a lot of hard to read
expressions. Most of my time is spent trying to break it up and make it
m
Jaren Stangret wrote:
> Attached is a patch for 'test_grabbag.sh'. Continuing in the same vein as
> the other patches, this patch consists of minor reworks of
> functions/commands as well as heavily commenting what's going on.
>
> More than halfway there!
Jaren,
Any sign of the patches for the
Attached is a patch for 'test_grabbag.sh'. Continuing in the same vein as
the other patches, this patch consists of minor reworks of
functions/commands as well as heavily commenting what's going on.
More than halfway there!
Thanks,
Jaren
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wro
Jaren Stangret wrote:
> Interestingly, I noticed compression level '0' is omitted, so I've added it
> in.
Thanks.
> Also, I tested this on a 24bit/96kHz FLAC file and the test failed between
> compression level 0 and compression level 1 -- the file size was greater
> with a compression level of
Attached is a patch for 'test_compression.sh'.
Interestingly, I noticed compression level '0' is omitted, so I've added it
in.
Also, I tested this on a 24bit/96kHz FLAC file and the test failed between
compression level 0 and compression level 1 -- the file size was greater
with a compression lev
Seems time is going to be a constraint for me in the coming week, but I'll
try and get more of these out to you as fast as I can get them written and
tested. Keeping the patches in a separate branch for now seems like a good
idea to me.
Attached is a patch for 'test_streams.sh'
On Tue, Mar 12,
Jaren Stangret wrote:
> Attached are only three patches (each patch is for a different test
> script). If everyone is happy with these three patches, I'll continue and
> rework the rest of the scripts.
These look good so far. I've commited them to a branch. When I
get the rest I'll test them th
Brian Willoughby wrote:
> Hmm, if this huge patch breaks the tests, how do we know whether
> 1.3.0 is performing identically to 1.2.1?
The only way I can conceive of this "breaking the tests" is by
making the test fail in a very obvious manner.
> I'm thinking that there is a possibility that
On Mar 11, 2013, at 21:37, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Jaren Stangret wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm currently going through the massive test suite, updating all the
>> scripts making sure they conform to the POSIX standard.
>>
>> I've added a bunch of comments to them and have slightly changed/
Jaren Stangret wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently going through the massive test suite, updating all the
> scripts making sure they conform to the POSIX standard.
>
> I've added a bunch of comments to them and have slightly changed/reworked
> some of the functions to make it easier to read and p
11 matches
Mail list logo
