Knut On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:59:43 +0200, Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 07.06.2018 um 19:08 schrieb James Lowe: > > > > OK But I assume I would have tested that patch against current master at > > the time which would have caused the failure? > > I'm sure you did. But everybody expects test-output-distance to fail, and a > staccato dot is small ... > > Nevertheless, see https://codereview.appspot.com/347870043/ and > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5338/ Yes. And we evidently have different concepts of what 'pass' means in terms of make check. ;) The tests I run make sure I can 'compile' every thing but the make test-baseline/make check will output the diffs once they were complete according to those 'make' functions - whatever 'check' is coded to do. I wnt back and looked at the tracker for Malte's patch https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3128/ and I can see my own comments (i.e. 'passes make, make check etc ...' ) a few times in that thread but no where do I see a 'reg test diff' attached by myself which I always do if I see any (unless it is the test-output and now this annoying staccato dot problem). So when I ran the make test baseline / check for the patch it would have been on current master at that time, but no diffs were shown. Else I would have posted them on the tracker. This is the method that has been used for the last 5 or 6 years by myself. How come I did not see anything different with the reg test output at the time? James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
