Re: 2.15.10 regtests

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 08:53:01AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> I know (I think..)  James now does the regtest comparison for every
> patch.

He does not.  And even if he did, he would be comparing the
individual effects of each individual patch, not the total effect
of them all.  It's not impossible that two unrelated patches could
individually produce no problem, but break stuff when combined.

> I'm wondering whether that makes the version-version regtests
> less important anyway?

It means that there should be a lower chance of something being
wrong, but it's still important to check.


The existance of massive-change patches is problematic; a tiny
modification to some font can cause almost every regtest to show a
change.  We could consider "saving up" those patches, then having
a release which *only* includes those patches.  A cursory
examination should suffice to see that nothing has broken.
At the current rate of releases and patches, I'm envisioning
having a "font release" once every two months.
I'll include this in tomorrow's new GOP-PROP.

Cheers,
- Graham