Masamichi Hosoda <truer...@trueroad.jp> writes: >> That's a rather bad problem. We usually have a two-week schedule of >> developer releases. When you find a really bad regression like that, it >> makes sense to indicate its urgency and decide between >> >> a) revert the patch causing the problem, and then create a new patch >> reintroducing the change in a fixed manner >> b) speed up the submission of the followup patch and not waiting for the >> regular countdown. >> >> When the fix is quite simple (like a typo or a very obvious oversight >> needing very little code), option b) is likely the easiest. Otherwise >> it makes sense to go via route a). >> >> Also, when submitting an issue like 4918, you should label it as >> category "Regression" when it is a recently introduced problem and state >> explicitly which patch/issue (if known) introduced the problem. Only >> then will it be obvious to others what the consequences may be and >> whether they should suggest to you or the Patch meister how to best deal >> with this particular problem. > > Sorry. > > I did not notice that it has such affected. > I thought it was a trivial issue of EPS output only.
Apropos: any idea why nothing was obvious in the regtests? It seems a bit strange that nothing turned up there. Maybe because most tests were not turned into bitmap graphics at all because of equal metrics? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
