Am 31.08.2016 um 23:48 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> On 08/31/2016 03:53 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Only with radiosity off does the re-factored code match 3.7.0 -
>>> otherwise none of the three match exactly.
>>
>> That is to be expected, unless you choose particularly high-quality
>> settings.
>>
>> You can also increase the chances of identical results by using the
>> `+HR` command-line switch.
>>
> 
> Sorry for my use of the word 'exactly.' Ignoring for the moment our
> current 3.7.1 code, I believe there is a systemic difference in
> radiosity results between 3.7.0 and the 3.7.1-re-factored texture code.

I can't ignore our current 3.7.1 code in this context, because that's my
reference for whether the refactoring broke anything. It is the nature
of refactoring that it shouldn't change the behaviour of the program. (*)

The differences I'm really interested in are:

(1) Differences between the refactored code and its closest
non-refactored sibling (**), as they would indicate that I broke
something during refactoring; and

(2) Differences between 3.7.0 and any later version of the master
branch, as they may indicate that I broke something outside the
refactored branch.

Differences between the refactored code and 3.7.0 are of little
importance to me, except as an indicator that there must also be
differences in categories (1) or (2).

In case of (1), I know I need to fix the refactored branch; in case of
(2), I know I need to fix the main branch (and merge the fix into the
refactored branch); but in case of the third kind I'm left clueless.


(* I must confess though that I tend to mix in the occasional fix for
bugs I discover during refactoring, especially if the refactoring turns
out to be the bug's "natural enemy".)

(** Ideally that would be 3.7.1-alpha.8737949 aka commit 4d52c26, dated
2016-08-12, but the closest tagged version, 3.7.1-alpha.8737777, should
be good enough for any scenes that make no use of `no_image` and its
kin; 3.7.1-alpha.8764097, the version you're using for testing, is
actually non-ideal.)

Post a reply to this message