Sorry for the delay Phil, I had missed this message. Le mercredi 08 août 2012 à 09:59 +0100, Phil Holmes a écrit : > 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?
+1 > 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. 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. Which problems have you had with "make -jX test"? They should be identified and fixed: they are a probable symptom of missing dependencies in the makefiles, that don't show up often because by chance Make calls commands in a correct order. > 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? Dropping a little paragraph is a good idea, but IMHO it's not worth documenting it in details, for which interested people should look directly at the code. Best, John _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
