On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 11:48:30PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Looks like we associate differing meanings with one or several of the
words unless, somebody or objects.
If the test remains in input/regression, then anyone inspecting the tests
will think
One major change from 2.15.7 - in nested-property-revert.ly. I'm assuming
this is down to David's reversion of an earlier commit. I'm not expert
enough to say what should happen here, although it doesn't look right to me.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
attachment:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
One major change from 2.15.7 - in nested-property-revert.ly. I'm
assuming this is down to David's reversion of an earlier commit. I'm
not expert enough to say what should happen here, although it doesn't
look right to me.
It's work in progress, I am
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: 2.15.8 Regtests
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
One major change from 2.15.7 - in nested-property-revert.ly. I'm
assuming this is down
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
One major change from 2.15.7 - in nested-property-revert.ly. I'm
assuming this is down to David's reversion of an earlier commit. I'm
not expert enough to say what should happen here, although it doesn't
look
On 6 August 2011 15:31, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I have a hard time counting the removal of a band aid for an artificial
test case with undefined behavior (try finding a place in the user
documentation that declares this kind of code as producing predictable
results) as a regression
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com writes:
On 6 August 2011 15:31, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I have a hard time counting the removal of a band aid for an artificial
test case with undefined behavior (try finding a place in the user
documentation that declares this kind of code as
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
One major change from 2.15.7 - in nested-property-revert.ly. I'm
assuming this is down to David's reversion of an earlier commit.
I think this needs to be added to the tracker, and would normally
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
No need for a new tracked issue. 'nested-property-revert.ly' was the test
for issue 1063.
It is now clear that issue 1063 was never really fixed. The goal was to
make \revert restore the default value in more situations.
The patch made
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes:
Unless somebody objects, I will remove 'nested-property-revert.ly' from
the test suite; The test code still exists in the open issue 1063.
I'd like to keep this test as I am working on the full
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Keith OHara k-ohara5a5a at oco.net writes:
Unless somebody objects, I will remove 'nested-property-revert.ly' from
the test suite; The test code still exists in the open issue 1063.
I'd like to keep this
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Looks like we associate differing meanings with one or several of the
words unless, somebody or objects.
Oops. I'm delaying pushing.
The troublesome word was the verb keep, from I'd like to keep.
Of course you can keep it, on your branch.
If the test
12 matches
Mail list logo
