Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
I failed miserably with email headers trying to reply earlier, sorry. Briefly,
les-nerides: this is definitely an
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote in message
news:icp0n7$77...@dough.gmane.org...
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote in message
news:ico0kf$cl...@dough.gmane.org...
I think the best bet is that I'll knock something up and run it over .41
when it arrives. We can then see whether it's
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
line interfaces get in the way.
Huh? If you see Ghostscript command line interfaces, you are calling
the wrong version of Ghostscript, or using the wrong options.
For X, there is some
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
line interfaces get in the way.
Huh? If you see Ghostscript command line interfaces, you are calling
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the Ghostscript command
line interfaces get in the way.
Huh? If you see Ghostscript
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87y68d9r4v@lola.goethe.zz...
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87y68dmy2e@lola.goethe.zz...
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
The PC is unusable when it's running - all the
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
les-nerides: this is definitely an improvement. I'm surprised to
see that the old version involved a collision betwee fingering
and a slur in different staves, though! (end
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:10:25PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a pixel-by-pixel
comparison, allowing a leeway of 1 in pixel brightness (range is 0
It identified 21 files with changes.
Wow, I was expecting much more! In that case, this is definitely
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote in message
news:20101127084430.ga8...@futoi...
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:10:25PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
Done this - comparing .39 with .40. I did a pixel-by-pixel
comparison, allowing a leeway of 1 in pixel brightness (range is 0
It
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:32:57AM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
http://www.holmessoft.co.uk/homepage/lilypond/imagediffs.htm
... you're creating 3d images for aliens with eyes arranged
vertically instead of horizontally?
Cheers,
- Graham
___
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote in message
news:20101126002715.ga15...@futoi...
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:14:17AM +, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 26 November 2010 00:00, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of time to compare each
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote in message
news:ico0kf$cl...@dough.gmane.org...
I think the best bet is that I'll knock something up and run it over .41
when it arrives. We can then see whether it's of use before working out
whether and how to progress it.
Done this - comparing .39
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:aanlktim-yd06h47zrvofpp-_qnrm_rwobnfoutokm...@mail.gmail.com...
On 24 November 2010 15:47, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
So if a completely new bit of graphics appears, the regtest checker
wouldn't
spot it? Not sure that's
On 25 November 2010 17:45, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd guess)
that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker functionality and did a
pixel-by-pixel check for image changes. I've done the latter bit in about
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:45:36PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd
guess) that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker
functionality and did a pixel-by-pixel check for image changes.
Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of
On 26 November 2010 00:00, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Hmm. It shouldn't take a huge amount of time to compare each pair
of regtest images -- they're named, so you'd be comparing
something like 500 pairs of .png images. (Neil: were you thinking
of something else?)
I
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
It wouldn't take me long to write a C# program (less than a day, I'd guess)
that reproduced quite a lot of the regtest checker functionality and did a
pixel-by-pixel check for image changes. I've done the latter bit in
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:22AM -0500, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
The reason I did not do it originally is that it moves the comparison
farther away from lilypond itself and pixel-per-pixel changes are not
calibrated for the size of the symbols: a large symbol moving place
will generate a much
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:22AM -0500, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
The reason I did not do it originally is that it moves the comparison
farther away from lilypond itself and pixel-per-pixel changes are not
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:aanlktimwrhxfv1phqy+dz1e3a7hhz3xp1g6of-=pg...@mail.gmail.com...
On 21 November 2010 23:16, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Huh. So evidently there's some other reason behind the fix for
this break not being detected? It
On 24 November 2010 15:47, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
So if a completely new bit of graphics appears, the regtest checker wouldn't
spot it? Not sure that's too good.
It might not, depending on whether the new grob influences bounding
boxes for other grobs.
What's the checker
On 21 November 2010 23:16, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Huh. So evidently there's some other reason behind the fix for
this break not being detected? It might be related to the
imagemagick's syntax change:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=908
I don't
I've cast my usual eye over the regtest comparison for 13.40 - the only
significant change appears to be with figured-bass-continuation-forbid.log
where we've lost the error message. This would appear to be expected, as a
result of the fix to the figured bass code resulting from Reinhold's
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
_However_. Shouldn't the regtest comparison for
figured-bass-continuation-forbid.ly flag the change as well?
I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that /disappearing/ errors
should be flagged?
Valentin.
Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net wrote in message
news:aanlktimjvrizkapoiva__+2phquq4hid4fngp2og6...@mail.gmail.com...
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
_However_. Shouldn't the regtest comparison for
figured-bass-continuation-forbid.ly flag the
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:52:38PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 21. November 2010, um 13:42:21 schrieb Phil Holmes:
I've cast my usual eye over the regtest comparison for 13.40 - the only
significant change appears to be with figured-bass-continuation-forbid.log
where we've
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:46:54PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 21. November 2010, um 20:09:12 schrieben Sie:
Unfortunately not:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/precompiled-regress
ion-tests Note: The automatic comparison of the regtests checks the
27 matches
Mail list logo
