> From that email on we started diving into the containment methods > instead of solveCubic and the email you refer to doesn't have a webrev > link to the code with your changes. Is there a final webrev for the > solveCubic changes?
I made a webrev, along with 3 regression tests (2 for my previous 2 pushes and one for solveCubic): http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/cc2d/webrev/ The regression test for solveCubic just tests the equation {0, 0, 1, 1} for which we used to find only 1 root. I thought about including a randomized stress test based your trySolve method that you sent a while ago, but I'm not a big fan of regression tests that have a small chance of failing even when nothing is wrong. What do you think about this? Regards, Denis. ----- Original Message ----- > > ...jim > > On 1/21/2011 1:00 PM, Denis Lila wrote: > >> I think so, but Phil knows more about the scripts that verify a > >> push. > >> > >> I think they do look for the bugids in the regression tests so I > >> don't > >> know what happens if they find a mismatch. I think you are probably > >> OK > >> as long as one of the tests lists the bug you are claiming to fix > >> on > >> that push... > > > > By the way, is the cubic solver improvement good to go? I tried to > > address the last concerns and questions you had about it in this > > e-mail: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2011-January/001769.html > > where I also propose some concrete documentation changes. > > > > Thank you, > > Denis.
