Re: Various updates to reduce make doc output (issue 5727055)

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julien Rioux" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> >
> > It seems just not worth it. We _never_ want to check warnings as part of
> > make doc. That's what regression tests are for.
> >
> > --
> > Phil Holmes
>
> I disagree, make -s doc is useful to identify warning messages that
> need fixing, and the log files are also useful for this. I think that
> the progress messages are what you should focus on silencing. The
> warning messages should be either fixed at the source or left in place
> so that someone eventually decides to fix them at the source. In this
> particular case, it might be that nobody will ever work to improve
> midi2ly, but that's not for us to say.
>
> Regards,
> Julien

Sorry - I expressed myself badly.  I meant that we shouldn't use make doc to 
check that warnings that we expect to appear do, in fact, continue to 
appear.  We should use make test to check that the "correct" warnings 
continue to be output.  I agree 100% that make doc _should_ make it easy to 
find new warnings we were unaware of.

The problem with this one is that Lilypond (like Sibelius...) only provides 
4 voices to allow notes to avoid colliding on a stave.  I haven't delved 
deeply into midi2ly, but my assumption is that it maps midi channels on a 
single stave to different voices.  The "offending" midi file has more that 4 
channels on a stave and therefore the mapping to 4 voices is never going to 
work properly - and so midi2ly warns the user.  But we don't want to 
continue to see those warnings on the screen, hence the suppression with -q. 
I can't see why an interactive user would use -q, so it won't give them a 
problem.  I also don't believe that having another logfile solely to contain 
the message "warning: found more than 5 voices on a staff, expect bad 
output" makes much sense.  Hence the way I went.

--
Phil Holmes