commit e325a23887fd93e56da2a13dd59a8b82a8ce74a0
Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Date: Wed Mar 11 20:58:46 2020 +0100
Address output-distance problems:
* Run output-distance.py from srcdir
* Generate self-test HTML in out/
https://codereview.appspot.com/563730043/
On Mar 13, 2020, at 04:43, Kevin Barry wrote:
>
> The direction of this statement is correct, but the magnitude is not. The
> kernel is still provided by the host. Getting a crash report can be
> frustrating when the guest's behavior hinges on /proc features that the host
> OS has
Kevin Barry writes:
>>
>>
>> The direction of this statement is correct, but the magnitude is not. The
>> kernel is still provided by the host. Getting a crash report can be
>> frustrating when the guest's behavior hinges on /proc features that the
>> host OS has configured appropriately for
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Kevin Barry writes:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Frankly, I am more sympathetic to "worksforme" discussions among
> >> developers than telling users "worksforme". Where is the point in being
> >> able to tell users that no developer will reproduce
>
>
> The direction of this statement is correct, but the magnitude is not. The
> kernel is still provided by the host. Getting a crash report can be
> frustrating when the guest's behavior hinges on /proc features that the
> host OS has configured appropriately for the host, not the guest.
>
On Mar 12, 2020, at 08:36, Kevin Barry wrote:
>
>> Would docker give us this 'proverbial canary' or would it turn into
>> 'worksforme' when someone tried to build their own version of LP on a
>> vanilla base of Linux?
>>
> Docker would eliminate 'worksforme' type issues yes.
The direction of
>
>
> I say that having a developer monoculture doesn't buy as anything since
> we still need to provide for a multitude of users.
>
We are talking about testing builds right? If a user gets as far as "I need
to test changes I made to the source code" then surely it would be better
to have
Kevin Barry writes:
>>
>>
>> Frankly, I am more sympathetic to "worksforme" discussions among
>> developers than telling users "worksforme". Where is the point in being
>> able to tell users that no developer will reproduce their problem?
>>
>> I'd rather have an error popping up for at least
>
>
> Frankly, I am more sympathetic to "worksforme" discussions among
> developers than telling users "worksforme". Where is the point in being
> able to tell users that no developer will reproduce their problem?
>
> I'd rather have an error popping up for at least some developers than
> for
Kevin Barry writes:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 12:48, wrote:
>> I'll defer you to Jonas' reply to this thread just after yours.
>>
>> I'm all for conistent build envs but at least make sure your testing
>> is actually ... err testing what it should be testing.
>>
>> Containers don't protect
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 12:48, wrote:
> I'll defer you to Jonas' reply to this thread just after yours.
>
> I'm all for conistent build envs but at least make sure your testing is
> actually ... err testing what it should be testing.
>
> Containers don't protect against that.
A docker container
On 12/03/2020 12:36, Kevin Barry wrote:
Would docker give us this 'proverbial canary' or would it turn into
'worksforme' when someone tried to build their own version of LP
on a
vanilla base of Linux?
Docker would eliminate 'worksforme' type issues yes
And yet ... isn't
Am Donnerstag, den 12.03.2020, 11:32 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:37 AM <
> pkx1...@posteo.net
> > wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > What exactly am I supposed to be testing?
> >
> > With or without make check?
> >
> > I am struggling with all this 'back and forth' and
On 2020/03/12 10:10:23, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/03/12 10:03:22, dak wrote:
> > Patch needs work (whether it contains a problem itself or triggers a
> > preexisting one that needs to be fixed in order for the patch to go
ahead),
> but
> > it was caught before the problem affected everyone.
>
> I
>
>
> Would docker give us this 'proverbial canary' or would it turn into
> 'worksforme' when someone tried to build their own version of LP on a
> vanilla base of Linux?
>
Docker would eliminate 'worksforme' type issues yes.
>
On 12/03/2020 10:32, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:37 AM wrote:
Hello
What exactly am I supposed to be testing?
With or without make check?
I am struggling with all this 'back and forth' and with patches getting
created and tested by different people (worksforme,
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:37 AM wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> What exactly am I supposed to be testing?
>>
>> With or without make check?
>>
>> I am struggling with all this 'back and forth' and with patches getting
>> created and tested by different people (worksforme,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:37 AM wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> What exactly am I supposed to be testing?
>
> With or without make check?
>
> I am struggling with all this 'back and forth' and with patches getting
> created and tested by different people (worksforme, doesn't work for me
> etc.).
This is
On 2020/03/12 10:03:22, dak wrote:
> Patch needs work (whether it contains a problem itself or triggers a
> preexisting one that needs to be fixed in order for the patch to go
ahead), but
> it was caught before the problem affected everyone.
I think it already affects everyone: Current master
On 2020/03/12 09:52:31, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/03/12 09:33:43, hahnjo wrote:
> > On 2020/03/12 09:22:09, dak wrote:
> > > On 2020/03/12 08:01:03, hahnjo wrote:
> > > > This looks like bash-ism which might explain why it works for
Han-Wen and
> > me.
> > > I
> > > > agree with him that disabling
On 2020/03/12 09:33:43, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/03/12 09:22:09, dak wrote:
> > On 2020/03/12 08:01:03, hahnjo wrote:
> > > This looks like bash-ism which might explain why it works for
Han-Wen and
> me.
> > I
> > > agree with him that disabling the local-test invocation in
GNUmakefile.in is
> > >
Hello
What exactly am I supposed to be testing?
With or without make check?
I am struggling with all this 'back and forth' and with patches getting
created and tested by different people (worksforme, doesn't work for me
etc.).
Could someone put something in the tracker to know what I am to
On 2020/03/12 09:22:09, dak wrote:
> On 2020/03/12 08:01:03, hahnjo wrote:
> > This looks like bash-ism which might explain why it works for
Han-Wen and me.
> I
> > agree with him that disabling the local-test invocation in
GNUmakefile.in is
> > probably the easiest solution for now. These tests
On 2020/03/12 08:01:03, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/03/11 23:49:23, dak wrote:
> > [...]
> > GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
> > cp: cannot stat '19.sub{-*.signature,.ly,-1.eps,.log,.profile}': No
such file
> or
> > directory
> > test results in ./out/test-output-distance
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>
On 2020/03/11 23:49:23, dak wrote:
> [...]
> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
> cp: cannot stat '19.sub{-*.signature,.ly,-1.eps,.log,.profile}': No
such file or
> directory
> test results in ./out/test-output-distance
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
Easiest fix is probably to change disable the test for
output-distance, by backing out the change GNUmakefile.in
I'm curious about the exact procedure for building here. I've tested
this and previous patch in various configurations.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:49 AM David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
hanw...@gmail.com writes:
> going to fast-track this so the testing can continue.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/563730043/
Patchy refuses. Staging is blocked. Since there is no point in
admitting a patch that will stop master from building, I am removing
from staging. I will retry to
going to fast-track this so the testing can continue.
https://codereview.appspot.com/563730043/
LGTM
(It might be a good idea to suppress the output of the test run - I was
seriously confused that output-distance was outputting differences
before even running the regression tests. But that's for a future
change.)
https://codereview.appspot.com/563730043/
On 2020/03/11 12:15:54, hahnjo wrote:
> Looks mostly good to me, but I don't understand the change for .
I'd
> propose to push only the changes required to restore 'make check'
because it's
> blocking James from testing patches.
>
>
Looks mostly good to me, but I don't understand the change for .
I'd propose to push only the changes required to restore 'make check'
because it's blocking James from testing patches.
https://codereview.appspot.com/563730043/diff/577660046/scripts/build/output-distance.py
File
31 matches
Mail list logo
