On 2016-03-16, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>>
>> > On current master run this test:
>> > ctest -R "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/es/UserGuide_pdf5_texF$"
>> >
>> >
Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 13:28:16, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> >
>
> > > On current master run this test:
> > > ctest -R "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/e
Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:00:22PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde
> >
> > > Dear Scott,
> > >
> > > On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016
On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:56:42AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> >> The ~100 failing tests merit some investigation (at least if not fixed in
>> >> a
>> >> couple of days).
>> > I sent an email with an MWE here:
>> > http://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2016-M
Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> > > The regex that the patch removes is this:
> > > export/doc/es/UserGuide_.*_systemF
> > >
> > > I do not think that should match
> > > "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/es/UserGuide_pdf5_texF$"
> >
> > UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>
> > On current master run this test:
> > ctest -R "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/es/UserGuide_pdf5_texF$"
> >
> > I get that it passes.
>
> I too.
>
> > But
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 06:45:11PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 13:28:16, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> > >
> >
> > > > On current
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:48:26PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2016-03-16, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> >> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> >>
>
> >> > On current master run this test:
> >> > ctes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:00:22PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
> > Dear Scott,
> >
> > On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > >> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:32:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>
> > > > The regex that the patch removes is this:
> > > > export/doc/es/UserGuide_.*_systemF
> > > >
> > > > I do not think that should match
> > > > "^UNRELIABLE.WR
Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 18:11:29, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:32:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> >
> > > > > The regex that the patch removes is this:
> > > > > export/doc/es/UserGuide_.*_system
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:32:25PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:56:42AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> I don't think that we need to act here -- this is a temporary problem
> of LuaTeX+polyglossia.
>
> The proposed workaround i
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:00:22PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
> > Dear Scott,
> >
> > On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > >> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak
Jürgen (CC'ed), if you have time can you read the the part of this email
starting with "Yes the maintainer of babel responded". If no time, don't
worry, we will do the best we can.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:56:42AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> >> >> For me it is aastex.cls not f
Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde
> Dear Scott,
>
> On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> >> There are ca. 100 failing luatex+fontspec tests, looks like
Dear Scott,
On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> There are ca. 100 failing luatex+fontspec tests, looks like a common cause.
>> 2 error logs might help a lot!
> If interested, see the MW
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> > And I thought we had the failures down to 0! What went wrong?
>
> > Well I still run the tests that are "UNRELIABLE". I just don't pay as
> > much attention to them as I do to other tests.
On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:39:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 13. März 2016 um 11:13:32, schrieb Guenter Milde
>>
>> > Hallo Scott,
>> >
>> > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> >
>> > > The number of ctest failures for me went from 10
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:39:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 13. März 2016 um 11:13:32, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
> > Hallo Scott,
> >
> > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >
> > > The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent
> > > tlmgr update that up
Am Sonntag, 13. März 2016 um 11:13:32, schrieb Guenter Milde
> Hallo Scott,
>
> On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent
> > tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991.
>
> And I thought we had the fail
Hallo Scott,
On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent
> tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991.
And I thought we had the failures down to 0! What went wrong?
> So the changes in tests should be due only
The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent
tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991. As usual
I did the following:
1. clean LyX build
2. ctest
3. tlmgr update
4. clean LyX build
5. ctest
6. compare results
So the changes in tests should be due only
22 matches
Mail list logo