James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > On 25 February 2013 12:00, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > "Phil Holmes" <em...@philholmes.net> writes: > > > I've run my pixel comparator on 2.17.13 versus 2.17.12 (note - > the > > output shows this as 2.17.11 since the windows exe contained the > wrong > > version number). Output is at > > > > http://philholmes.net/lilypond/regtestresults/2.17.13/ > > > > As might be supposed, most of the differences are connecting bar > > lines. > > > Good grief. Yes. A real pity that our default regtest comparisons > blanked those out. > > > Well it could always be a case of me missing that assuming I did the > check. Although I have been known to miss the odd change (see Werner's > dot issue) I thought i would have spotted that change. > > It's part of the reason though that if I do see reg tests appear that > aren't just strings or cell diffs, that I zip and upload the > test-results for others to look at. > > Do you know when the before and after would have been between the two > as I could re-run a test patchy perhaps by reverting master and > staging on my local server and then just explicitly testing the patch > that might have changed this.
Well, it was commit 0218d1c504463d1ea5b534f23ab4d45c1bc00d6e Author: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> Date: Sun Feb 17 18:22:57 2013 +0100 Issue 3192: Clean up bar-line.scm some more It has been reverted for now, but of course you can cherry-pick it again for testing. There is a comment in the patch saying + ;; end of loop + ;; model-bar is the last bar found in the elts list + ;; (former version had the first here). And it is quite possible that this is the problem and "model-bar" is more than just an arbitrary model bar. I'll try my hand on this one first (it slightly complicates the code), but I am somewhat at a loss about how to test it with good confidence. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel