- Original Message -
From:
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Regtest checking
> Is this with make test?
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
No, make check.
Should I be using make test?
Cheers,
MS
Depends what you're
On 3 sept. 2012, at 13:05, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From:
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 11:53 AM
> Subject: Regtest checking
>
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> While running regtests, I ran into a crash and got a whole heap of file
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject: Regtest checking
Hey all,
While running regtests, I ran into a crash and got a whole heap of files
to check (I've put the command below).
They all compile clean when I run them individually, so
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 12:59:55PM +0200, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> On 3 sept. 2012, at 12:53, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
-snip 129 lines-
> Answered my own question - please ignore.
Mike, please quote correctly. We very very rarely need to see an
entire quoted email; especia
On 3 sept. 2012, at 12:53, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> While running regtests, I ran into a crash and got a whole heap of files to
> check (I've put the command below).
> They all compile clean when I run them individually, so I was wondering if
> someone knew where the logfiles
Hey all,
While running regtests, I ran into a crash and got a whole heap of files to
check (I've put the command below).
They all compile clean when I run them individually, so I was wondering if
someone knew where the logfiles for these things were stashed so I can see how
they're failing?
Ch
pushed as 90ee61d5b681295b8b401128ca9bc48554eee66a
closed
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Screw this; i tried using regular refs but they produced hideous
effects in html. I'm going back to named references; they are not
perfect but acceptable i'd say.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gn
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Up to you. The fancier you make the formatting, the harder it is
> to maintain. You should also check how it looks in info. If you
> want to play games with that, go ahead -- as I said, we don't
> forbid @...named. But I personally wou
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:51:31PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> I decided not to use @rglos and @rinternals (because from what i
> understand it would print the name of the section i'm referring to) but
> use @rglosnamed and @rinternalsnamed instead.
I discourage (but not forbid) the u
New patch set uploaded, it should make doc now.
Thanks for the tips, Carl and Graham! You saved me some time.
I decided not to use @rglos and @rinternals (because from what i
understand it would print the name of the section i'm referring to) but
use @rglosnamed and @rinternalsnamed instead. Th
On 2/23/12 3:13 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:24:22PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Could you help me with links to music glossary and internals? Julien
>> wrote that they are wrong, and i don't know how they should be done (and
>> i'm really busy so if y
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:24:22PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Could you help me with links to music glossary and internals? Julien
> wrote that they are wrong, and i don't know how they should be done (and
> i'm really busy so if you can save me 15 minutes of searching i'd be
> grate
New patch set uploaded.
On 2012/02/17 12:04:10, Graham Percival wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contribut
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode512
Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode511
Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:511:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode511
Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:511:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Please review.
The most important question is: will this be clear for average user, who
hadn't participated in development previously?
Description:
CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project
Phil Holmes wrote a nice web app that allows people to
review reg
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:16:24PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> I completely second this and would like to apologize for wasting anyone's time
> with regtests.
oops, my initial email was a bit too harsh. I should have written
"in the future, if James finds problems in your patch, you sho
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Mike recently posted a patch with the comment "don't run the
> regtests on this; this patch is just a proof-of-concept" (or
> something like that). I think this is a great idea; let's do more
> of it! If a patch is not explicitly called "proo
tl;dr: if James does a regtest check of your patch and sees
problems, you should be ashamed.
In the past few weeks, we've had a fantastic deluge of patches.
Fantastic deluge is fantastic.
However, our ratio of regtest-passing-patches vs. problem-patches
has gone way down. That's not fantastic.
21 matches
Mail list logo
