Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
pushed as 90ee61d5b681295b8b401128ca9bc48554eee66a closed http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
Screw this; i tried using regular refs but they produced hideous effects in html. I'm going back to named references; they are not perfect but acceptable i'd say. http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
New patch set uploaded, it should make doc now. Thanks for the tips, Carl and Graham! You saved me some time. I decided not to use @rglos and @rinternals (because from what i understand it would print the name of the section i'm referring to) but use @rglosnamed and @rinternalsnamed instead. This worked nice in html manual, but in pdf i got: ...explained in our Section “Music Glossary” in Music Glossary Chapter 9: Regression tests 98 or Section “Internals Reference” in Internals Reference. Not perfect... shall i use regular references or don't worry about this? http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:51:31PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: I decided not to use @rglos and @rinternals (because from what i understand it would print the name of the section i'm referring to) but use @rglosnamed and @rinternalsnamed instead. I discourage (but not forbid) the use of @...named; I think we should just use @rglos and let texinfo figure out what to print. That's what we do elsewhere, so it's good enough. This worked nice in html manual, but in pdf i got: ...explained in our Section “Music Glossary” in Music Glossary Chapter 9: Regression tests 98 or Section “Internals Reference” in Internals Reference. Not perfect... shall i use regular references or don't worry about this? *shrug* Up to you. The fancier you make the formatting, the harder it is to maintain. You should also check how it looks in info. If you want to play games with that, go ahead -- as I said, we don't forbid @...named. But I personally would just use the standard @rglos and accept whatever that produces. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: Up to you. The fancier you make the formatting, the harder it is to maintain. You should also check how it looks in info. If you want to play games with that, go ahead -- as I said, we don't forbid @...named. But I personally would just use the standard @rglos and accept whatever that produces. Done. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:24:22PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: Could you help me with links to music glossary and internals? Julien wrote that they are wrong, and i don't know how they should be done (and i'm really busy so if you can save me 15 minutes of searching i'd be grateful). I don't remember what they're supposed to be. The Docs chapter of the CG should have it. The code is in Documentation/macros.itexi or Documentation/common-macros.itexi. It might be faster to look at the code itself. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
On 2/23/12 3:13 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:24:22PM +, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you help me with links to music glossary and internals? Julien
wrote that they are wrong, and i don't know how they should be done (and
i'm really busy so if you can save me 15 minutes of searching i'd be
grateful).
I don't remember what they're supposed to be. The Docs chapter of
the CG should have it. The code is in Documentation/macros.itexi
or Documentation/common-macros.itexi. It might be faster to look
at the code itself.
@rglos {}
@rlearning {}
Shown in CG 5.3.6 Syntax survey
HTH,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
New patch set uploaded. On 2012/02/17 12:04:10, Graham Percival wrote: http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode512 Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:512: accidental placement by constucting one huge chord with many suspended notes uh, wait a moment. Don't you want to check that accidentals don't collide with each other? How can you do that without having one huge chord? i want to check more than whether accidentals don't collide (they should be placed in certain order, and there's also the should flats sixth apart be staggered or not thingy, and so on) I really think you should remove this subheading entirely. It's difficult to read, and I'm not certain that changing the regtests in this way would even be a good idea. Get the other parts accepted first, and then we can argue about this additional portion later if you really insist. OK. I'm really sure that some regtests should be designed in a different way, but this indeed can wait. Probably an example would be nice here. Could you help me with links to music glossary and internals? Julien wrote that they are wrong, and i don't know how they should be done (and i'm really busy so if you can save me 15 minutes of searching i'd be grateful). cheers, Janek http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/5001/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode512 Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:512: accidental placement by constucting one huge chord with many suspended notes uh, wait a moment. Don't you want to check that accidentals don't collide with each other? How can you do that without having one huge chord? I really think you should remove this subheading entirely. It's difficult to read, and I'm not certain that changing the regtests in this way would even be a good idea. Get the other parts accepted first, and then we can argue about this additional portion later if you really insist. http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode511 Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:511: it shouldn't check everything at once. For example it's a bad idea to test I disagree slightly here: most regtests should only do a single thing, but a few (deliberately) test multiple ones. For example, there's some piece by IIRC Schubert which uses every type of grob (or something like that; I just remember being told off by Jan for deleting that regtest so I had to rescue it from git history). Ideally those regtests would be clearly marked as separate from the others, but since that hasn't been done, I don't think we should ask users to complain about large regtests. http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG: add information about Regtest Checking Project (issue 5669047)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi File Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi#newcode511 Documentation/contributor/regressions.itexi:511: it shouldn't check everything at once. For example it's a bad idea to test On 2012/02/14 18:33:06, Graham Percival wrote: I disagree slightly here: most regtests should only do a single thing, but a few (deliberately) test multiple ones. Yes, a few regtests are engravings of whole pieces. But since they are rare, the people checking the results of the survey will handle them. Nevertheless, i rephrased this a bit and added usually. http://codereview.appspot.com/5669047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
