> As suggested by Werner on February 8th in "Please test GUB" thread,
> we should update tex/texinfo.tex in our sources from Texinfo git
> repo. Is there any objection to applying this change on both
> staging and stable/2.20 branches without the usual review process?
Obviously, I don't have
Hi folks,
As suggested by Werner on February 8th in "Please test GUB" thread, we
should update tex/texinfo.tex in our sources from Texinfo git repo. Is
there any objection to applying this change on both staging and
stable/2.20 branches without the usual review process?
I also have another
v.villen...@gmail.com writes:
> On 2019/02/19 22:29:34, dak wrote:
>> I get no warning there.
>
> You may need to `make clean’ or `make bin-clean’ then `make’ again to
> get it:
>
>
> page-turn-page-breaking.cc: In instantiation of 'bool is_break(T*) [with
> T = Grob]':
>
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Yes, I think we should prevent that, if possible – they are indeed of
> no practical use.
It's certainly possible, it must boil down to filtering out web from
TEXI_FILES or TEXINFO_MANUALS, and give this to PDF_FILES definition in
the makefiles. I'm testing a patch for
On 2019/02/19 22:29:34, dak wrote:
I get no warning there.
You may need to `make clean’ or `make bin-clean’ then `make’ again to
get it:
page-turn-page-breaking.cc: In instantiation of 'bool is_break(T*) [with
T = Grob]':
page-turn-page-breaking.cc:50:54: required from here
v.villen...@gmail.com writes:
> On 2019/02/19 21:40:03, Valentin Villenave wrote:
>> Use %zu; add warning for --relocate.
>
> BTW, if anyone has an idea about the -Wsequence-point warning issued
> about is_break () in page-turn-page-breaking.cc, I’d gladly welcome a
> helping hand!
I get no
On 2019/02/19 21:40:03, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Use %zu; add warning for --relocate.
BTW, if anyone has an idea about the -Wsequence-point warning issued
about is_break () in page-turn-page-breaking.cc, I’d gladly welcome a
helping hand!
V.
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/
Where do you see any action taken differently in reaction
to "recognizing" --relocate? This just runs into break;
either way.
Ah, right. My mistake. On the other hand, maybe we should add a
warning that `--relocate' is a deprecated no-op?
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/
On 2019/02/19 13:46:56, lemzwerg wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/main.cc
File lily/main.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/main.cc#newcode635
lily/main.cc:635: { }; // ignore option for backwards compatibility
On 2019/02/19 12:55:10,
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/main.cc
File lily/main.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/main.cc#newcode635
lily/main.cc:635: { }; // ignore option for backwards compatibility
On 2019/02/19 12:55:10, dak wrote:
This code is insane. Maybe
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/beam-quanting.cc
File lily/beam-quanting.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/353880043/diff/2/lily/beam-quanting.cc#newcode1039
lily/beam-quanting.cc:1039: string card = best->score_card_ + to_string
(" c%d/%lu", completed,
Hello,
Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on
February 22nd.
A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be
found here:
http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/
Push:
5473 Use "simple strings" rather than #"hash-prefixed Scheme
12 matches
Mail list logo
