Re: Another patch with a massive renderingdifference.

Dan,

I suggest retain committing such patches in SAME DAY,
because CVS has no method to checking out revisions with
a smaller time quantum.

Since 1 day passed after my "massive" checkin,
another one is now safe. I have no objections
for your commitment now.

IMO baseline updates should be monitored by a single
authorized engineer, to prevent a disorder.
Currently Jack is such. So address this issue to him.

Igor.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Coby" <[email protected]>
To: "Igor V. Melichev" <[email protected]>; "Ray Johnston"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Miles Jones" <[email protected]>; "Jack Moffitt"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 7:15 AM
Subject: RE: [gs-code-review] Another patch with a massive
renderingdifference.


>
> Igor,
>
> I have patch that I would like to check into CVS.  This change
> affects the size of a halftoning pattern.  This change causes
> 1597 'regressions'.  Actually these are progressions.  After
> checking in this change, I need to update the baselines for
> 331 files.  This only leaves 78 files that I do not need to
> change the baseline.
>
> My question are:  How do I check in my change and update the
> baselines without possibly losing a real regression caused
> by all of the current outstanding regressions?  When will I
> be able to check in my changes safely?
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Igor V.
> Melichev
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 12:17 AM
> To: Ray Johnston
> Cc: Miles Jones; Jack Moffitt; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [gs-code-review] Another patch with a massive
> renderingdifference.
>
>
> Ray,
>
> > From: "Ray Johnston" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Igor V. Melichev" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "Miles Jones" <[email protected]>; "Jack Moffitt"
> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [gs-code-review] Another patch with a massive
> renderingdifference.
>
>
> >  Your committment of this patch
> > on top of the pending regressions greatly complicates his effort.
>
> I'm unclear what does it complicate.
> The patches were committed in different days.
> There were 1 nightly checkpoint between then.
> To analyze differences one should use an appropriate checkout.
>
> > Once again, before the previous regressions have been examined
>
>
> > In this case it does not make sense that Courier vs. NimbusMonL-Regu
> > in the PDF file would cause *ANY* regression difference since the
> > same font (NimbusMonL-Regu) is used to render the PDF and the PS,
> > thus the raster image should not change.
>
> PDF is not so simple.
> With embedded fonts it provides Widths array.
> With standard fonts it does not.
> The new revision recognize Courier as a standard font and does not embed
it.
> Therefore there is no Widths.
> Therefore lsb from the font is used when rasterizing the PDF.
> With embedded fonts the lsb first is converted by pdfwrite to 1000 unit
> scale,
> then the rasteriser converts it back to design units, then to device
units.
> Therefore the results can't be identical.
>
> In any case, since the new revision doesn't embed fonts,
> it appears closer to PS-->raster, i.e. it is a progression.
> I've said it in my announcement.
>
> As to the old revisions, I intend to open a bug for tracking the case
> of inprecise Widths. It was on 2am of my local time,
> and I decided to delay it for the next day.
> I don't think that I should report such minor things whenever they occure.
>
> > To what do you attribute the massive expected regressions for this
> > patch?
>
> I've run a regression testing on my comp before committing.
> It reported the differences.
> I've checked many arbitrary choosen ones,
> and saw it is a progression. I informed stuff about that.
>
> > Jack is only 1/2 time and
> > also does not have your insight into the nature of expected
> > differences in order to verify that differences are either trivial
> > or are improvements.
>
> I believe that I can find a manpower for this duty for $1000/month.
> Could this help ?
>
> Igor.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gs-code-review mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.ghostscript.com/mailman/listinfo/gs-code-review
>
>