Re: testing out Docker CI scripts?

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:54 PM David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:23 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > I would be interested in your feedback.
> >>
> >> Not having run any of this, my immediate response would that it's not
> >> running 'make doc' AFAICS.
> >
> > For changes to the code, it should be irrelevant to run make doc: the
> > regression test should cover all the behaviors we care about from a
> > programming perspective.
>
> It would be nice if you considered asking questions instead of just
> assuming that our established procedures do not make sense and are not
> actually rooted in any relevant experience.
>
> We had a considerable amount of documentation building failures due to
> "code-only" changes that "couldn't possibly" affect the doc build.  To a
> good degree this is because the in-code documentation (like of
> properties, music functions and a whole bunch of stuff ending up in the
> Internals Reference) is run through various interpreters of Texinfo.

I think we could and should run the documentation as part of the regtests.

> > The time that David quotes for 'make doc' (~40 minutes) sounds wrong.
> >
> > $ ls -1 input/regression/*.ly|wc
> >    1347    1347   55843
> >
> > $ grep @lilypond $(find  Documentation/ -name '*.*tely' | grep -v
> > 'Documentation/[a-z][a-z]/')|wc
> >    1828    1938  136964
> >
> > Building the docs should take about 1.5x the time of building the
> > regtests. lilypond-book uses a shared database for snippets across all
> > languages, so there should be neglible additional cost for the rest of
> > the languages.
>
> Assuming that all translations are kept at exactly the same level and
> the example code is not at all adapted to the language in question in
> lyrics and code comments.
>
> And assuming that our regtests make up 40% of the LilyPond material in
> the documentation and are not getting recompiled as part of including
> them into the various forms of the documentation.
>
> Since the documentation graphics are produced in PNG format for HTML
> inclusion and in PDF format for PDF inclusion, that seems audacious.

I don't understand you; what seems audacious?

I think the runtime of make doc is off by a factor of about 5, which
could be explained if somehow each language recompiles the snippets
afresh.

You seem dismissive of my analysis, so I guess you don't want to look
into this further?

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen