David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes: > Keith OHara <k-ohara5a5a <at> oco.net> writes: > > > It seems that we knew about these problems, bug then added the > > regression tests anyway. > > > > We have bug-reports, so it seems we lose no information > > Bug reports or an actual issue in the tracker? >
Well, there is of course the bug report in the issue title, but Federico's example and log seem to point more to the bug reported in another thread here, now issue 4231 > > if we avoid these issues in the regression test, but the last time I > > tried that I got > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-11/msg00559.html> > > There was no attempt of even making a tracker issue that time as far as > I can tell, it was strictly a sweep-under-the-rug approach. The tracker issue from 2011 was linked in the email linked above. A new regtest had triggered a previously-tracked issue, and somebody with and email starting 'dak' complained on the bug-lilypond. I pointed to the tracker item, and suggested to change the regtest. Then a message from 'dak' posted to the tracker item complained that the error in the regtest hindered regression testing. So I put the known work-around into the offending regtest, and somebody with the email staring 'dak' reverted the work-around. Let's see what happens this time. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
