Re: 2.13.40 regtests

[Phil Holmes]

"Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote in message 
news:address@hidden
> On 21 November 2010 23:16, Graham Percival <address@hidden> 
> wrote:

> > Huh. So evidently there's some other reason behind the fix for
> > this break not being detected? It might be related to the
> > imagemagick's syntax change:
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=908

> I don't think this is the problem.

> The check relies on a grob existing in the baseline image for
> comparison with the check image; in this case, there's no BassFigure
> in the original image, and its appearance in the changed image has no
> effect on other bounding boxes, so there's no distance change.

> Cheers,
> Neil

So if a completely new bit of graphics appears, the regtest checker wouldn't 
spot it?  Not sure that's too good.  What's the checker written in?

--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad