----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>
To: "Janek Warchol" <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Devel" <lilypond-de...@gnu.org>; "LilyPond User Group"
<lilypond-user@gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janek Warchol" <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>
To: "Phil Holmes" <em...@philholmes.net>
Cc: "LilyPond User Group" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>; "Devel"
<lilypond-de...@gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Phil Holmes <em...@philholmes.net>
wrote:
First of all, thanks to those who have spent time and energy rating the
regression test at http://www.philholmes.net/lilypond/regtests/ - we're
very
close to having a rating for all the tests.
[...]
"LilyPond Regression Test Rater
Well - believe it or not, either you've reviewed ALL the LilyPond
regtests, in which case thanks and please take a well earned rest, or
other reviewers have given us good enough coverage already."
wow! Kudos!
:)
Janek
Don't get too excited. It's a bug - it looks like every regtest has
received a single rating, but we're going for 4 per regtest, to get a good
average. I'll fix it tomorrow....
--
Phil Holmes
Kind-of fixed. The way the files are presented is aimed at ensuring no-one
rates a regtest more than once, and that they get the least-rated files
presented to them in a random order. The only way I seem to be able to get
this to work is with nested SQL statements, and this is quite slow. The
alternative would be to make it simpler, so that users simply get files
which they haven't rated, with no ordering apart from that. However, the
downside of this is that we may get lots of files with 4 ratings, but some
remain with only 1 until we've done the lot. Let me know what you'd prefer,
fellow raters.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
