Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> writes: > <lilypond <at> googlecode.com> writes: >> >> I expect the problem is Mike's uninitialized variable, not this patch, but >> I'll move this back to New and re-test. >> > > Just clarifyling to be fair, it is not Mike's uninitialized variable > (or other intermittency-causing bug). Mike was merely unfortunate > enough to write a couple reg-tests that suffer from issue 1723 > (and stubborn enough to refuse to let me edit the reg-test to work > around the bug).
Editing the regtests to avoid them exhibiting bugs just is not common sense. It would be better if we had a regtest _more_ reliably showing this bug, but until we figure out more about it, that's hard to do. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
