On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:10:03 -0800, Graham Percival wrote:
les-nerides: this is definitely an improvement. I'm surprised to
see that the old version involved a collision between fingering
and a slur in different staves, though! (end of bar 2)
Could somebody look into whether this is a known bu
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
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
___
lilypond-de
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
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
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:
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
