Passes Make and reg tests are all here
http://lilypond-stuff.1065243.n5.nabble.com/Tracker-issue-2000-12-November-td4986583.html
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5323062/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org
Passes make and no reg test diffs
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5370048/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:35:29PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> If James uses patch from lilypond-extra
> e52f265dd585050fe74250fd291d85886b7f653f
> then AFAIK patchy is "stupid enough". It's doing
> git clone --mirror -s %s .git
> git --git-dir=.git config cor
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:35:29PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> If James uses patch from lilypond-extra
>> e52f265dd585050fe74250fd291d85886b7f653f
>> then AFAIK patchy is "stupid enough". It's d
Hi !
Here is what I get on a fresh clone (Fedora 15 box).
Do I have to fear about it?
[jcharles@localhost Lily]$ git clone -l -s -n . ../Mentors
Cloning into '../Mentors'...
done.
[jcharles@localhost Lily]$ cd ../Mentors/
[jcharles@localhost Mentors]$ git reset --hard
HEAD is now at dd63de6 Rele
Jean-Charles Malahieude writes:
> Hi !
>
> Here is what I get on a fresh clone (Fedora 15 box).
> Do I have to fear about it?
>
> [jcharles@localhost Lily]$ git clone -l -s -n . ../Mentors
> Cloning into '../Mentors'...
> done.
> [jcharles@localhost Lily]$ cd ../Mentors/
> [jcharles@localhost Men
David
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Peekay Ex wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:35:29PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> If James uses patch from lilypond-extra
>>> e52f265dd585050fe74
David Kastrup writes:
> Sigh. That one's mine, yaffut outfall. It is nothing to worry about,
> but I agree that it looks ugly. I am going to fix this soonish.
>
> I did not want to hear of this ever again.
Pushed a fix to master. No, I still do not want to hear of this ever
again. Fortunate
Peekay Ex writes:
> jlowe@jlowe-LP-VM:~/Desktop$ python compile_lilypond_test.py
> remote: Counting objects: 5, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done.
> remote: Total 3 (delta 2), reused 0 (delta 0)
> Unpacking objects: 100% (3/3), done.
>>From git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond
>1
LGTM.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/5371050/diff/1/lily/grob.cc
File lily/grob.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5371050/diff/1/lily/grob.cc#newcode542
lily/grob.cc:542: while (c != d) {
On 2011/11/10 16:41:54, joeneeman wrote:
{ on new line
This should be fixed by ru
On 2011/11/12 17:06:15, Carl wrote:
LGTM.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/5371050/diff/1/lily/grob.cc
File lily/grob.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5371050/diff/1/lily/grob.cc#newcode542
lily/grob.cc:542: while (c != d) {
On 2011/11/10 16:41:54, joeneeman wrote:
At some point in the near future, I'll need to push a CG patch to update the
bug squad rota. My understanding is that this should now be done to
dev/staging rather than master. I've read David's note about how to do
this, and wonder whether that's all necessary for a simple patch that's in
my
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> At some point in the near future, I'll need to push a CG patch to
> update the bug squad rota. My understanding is that this should now
> be done to dev/staging rather than master. I've read David's note
> about how to do this, and wonder whether that's all necessary for
Passes make, two reg test show up see
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2037#c2
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5373081/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:58:55PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
> > At some point in the near future, I'll need to push a CG patch to
> > update the bug squad rota. My understanding is that this should now
> > be done to dev/staging rather than master. I've read David's
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
>> At some point in the near future, I'll need to push a CG patch to
>> update the bug squad rota. My understanding is that this should now
>> be done to dev/staging rather than master. I've read David's not
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:58:55PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>> > At some point in the near future, I'll need to push a CG patch to
>> > update the bug squad rota. My understanding is that this should now
>> > be done to dev/staging rathe
Peekay Ex writes:
> So does that mean we are considering this 'staging' branch push
> experiment a (near) success or at least something we all agree on or
> is that another GOPpy thing? - I know we've had some minor
> inconveniences with this method that requires knowledge of git more
> than we h
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:43:54PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > What does "rebase to your push target" mean?
>
> You can't push if the pushed branch is not a descendant of the branch
> you push to.
>
> It's not like this a surprising new thing. It's just the same
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:56:38PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> And you can't push to master anyway without having rebased (or merged,
> which one does not usually want to see upstream) your development branch
> to its current state, so I have trouble understanding your problem.
You're assuming t
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:43:54PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > What does "rebase to your push target" mean?
>>
>> You can't push if the pushed branch is not a descendant of the branch
>> you push to.
>>
>> It's not like this a surpr
On 11/12/11 3:08 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
>
>The only problem is to develop a series of simple commands to do
>this task.
Here's my set of simple commands:
git checkout master
git pull origin master
git apply my_patch_file_name_goes_here
git checkout staging
git pull origin staging
git c
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:13:18AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Sorry, I was unclear.
> >
> > - I am a new contributor. No wait, a new developer who has just
> > been given git push ability.
> > - I am a stupid.
>
> Why would one have given you push ability?
Be
On 11/12/11 4:59 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>On 11/12/11 3:08 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>The only problem is to develop a series of simple commands to do
>>this task.
>
>Here's my set of simple commands:
>
>git checkout master
>git pull origin master
>git apply my_patch_file_name
Graham Percival writes:
> **OR**... I could run the 7 commands that Carl suggested, and
> spend those X hours working on lilypond instead of reading git
> docs.
>
> I think that second option is best for the project.
>
> James, Phil? Please test those commands, and if they work, get
> them into
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 11/12/11 3:08 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>The only problem is to develop a series of simple commands to do
>>this task.
>
> Here's my set of simple commands:
>
> git checkout master
> git pull origin master
If you did your own development on master, you now
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 11/12/11 4:59 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>>
>>On 11/12/11 3:08 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The only problem is to develop a series of simple commands to do
>>>this task.
>>
>>Here's my set of simple commands:
>>
>>git checkout master
>>git pull origin
On 11/12/11 9:06 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>If you use git am on a patch (or patch series) created with git
>format-patch, it will do the equivalent of cherry-picks instead of just
>duplicating the effect on the work tree. Better for the history than
>just patching. Worse than fast-forward
28 matches
Mail list logo
