On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > I've been looking at how the regression test comparison works. The > first thing I find is that we have 2 effectively duplicate, but > different, pages on running regtest comparisons: > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/verify-regression-tests > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/regtest-comparison > > I think the latter is probably more accurate. I think it would be > best to delete one and point to the other?
Yes, the regtest-comparison page was written after the verify-regression-tests; specifically because people didn't understand the verifying- page. I note that verifying- already has a link to regtests-, though. Hmm, it might be worth looking at the git history to see when the "typical developer's edit/compile/test/cycle" part was added. And/or makign the link at the top of verify- easier to see? > I've also been benchmarking. For example, I know that make > CPU_COUNT=9 test is _much_ faster than make test, but the make -j9 > test isn't worth doing - most of the time is spent building the > single regtest document, which lilypond parallelises much better > than make. Rather: make does not parallelize the lilypond call at all. > I have had errors using -jX so am slightly suspicious of > that option. I would like to add the best way to parallelise the > test process to the CG. Isn't that what the "typical developer/edit/compiler" bit is about? The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Neither section discussing the regtests is completely wrong or a complete duplicate of the other. This can't be solved by simply deleting one and linking to the other. > I've also been looking at how output-distance works. Does anyone > now understand what this actually does? From following the code, it > looks to me like it doesn't actually compare images - it compares > the .signature files, and if there's a difference over the > threshold, it creates an image of the original and changed file, and > then makes a "ghost" version of the change to overlay on the > original. Does this seem correct. Worth documenting? I don't understand how it works, but your description sounds very plausible to me given the way that people talked about output-distance 5-10 years ago. I certainly see no problem in documenting it. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
