On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 04:03:11AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 5/16/10 6:12 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>
> > Graham Percival wrote:
> >> A larger question is whether we should keep "3.6
> >> Post-installation options". In the first place, the word
> >> "options" implies (to me) something
On 5/16/10 6:12 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> A larger question is whether we should keep "3.6
>> Post-installation options". In the first place, the word
>> "options" implies (to me) something akin to configuration
>> options, not "a list of possible commands" (which
Graham Percival wrote:
> A larger question is whether we should keep "3.6
> Post-installation options". In the first place, the word
> "options" implies (to me) something akin to configuration
> options, not "a list of possible commands" (which is the
> meaning used here).
How about restructuring
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
>From the debacle with "Issue 915" I have learned that
>
> . section 8 "Regression tests" is related to section 3.6.3.1
Yes, it's unfortunate that we don't at least have a link from
chapter 8 to 3.6.3. It could also be useful to have s
>From the debacle with "Issue 915" I have learned that
. "make test-redo" does not catch regression due to program changes
. rest-collision-beam-note.ly changes is more or less expected
. section 8 "Regression tests" is related to section 3.6.3.1
Does "make check" after test-baseline serve any p
