> I did some better structured measurements, with interleaved runs on
> MSDM: [...]
Have you ever tried valgrind's `callgrind` tool for profiling (and
using `kcachegrind` for displaying the results)? While very slow it
would avoid temperature issues and the like – no need to call it
multiple
Hello,
On 15/04/2020 23:08, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:44 PM David Kastrup wrote:
To conclude, I believe we should choose one of Gerrit and GitLab and
have a trial to see if the processes can be carried over. (If not, we
can still give the other platform a try.)
IIRC,
You're not going to be able to run this because you don't have the
after-writing callback that it requires, but I hope that it is unnecessary to
run this to answer my question.
What I have seen while testing this is that the header returned by
(ly:performance-header performance) contains only
On 2020/04/15 22:23:44, hanwenn wrote:
> description
now I remember why the deep copy was there. I've updated the
description.
https://codereview.appspot.com/561640045/
On 2020/04/14 20:07:17, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/04/14 19:14:29, hanwenn wrote:
> > On 2020/04/14 10:22:01, hahnjo wrote:
> > > On 2020/04/14 09:39:18, hanwenn wrote:
> > > > it reads from the immutable_list_ if there is no override in the
> > > > mutable property list.
> > >
> > > Ack, that's
LGTM
the recompiles of buildscripts are such a PITA. It's fantastic that this
is now fixed. Thanks!
https://codereview.appspot.com/545870043/
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:44 PM David Kastrup wrote:
> > To conclude, I believe we should choose one of Gerrit and GitLab and
> > have a trial to see if the processes can be carried over. (If not, we
> > can still give the other platform a try.)
>
> IIRC, Gerrit was not really tracking issues and
On Apr 15, 2020, at 15:44, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
>
>> To conclude, I believe we should choose one of Gerrit and GitLab and
>> have a trial to see if the processes can be carried over. (If not, we
>> can still give the other platform a try.)
>
> IIRC, Gerrit was not
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
On 2020/04/15 20:08:08, lemzwerg wrote:
> LGTM, with some nits.
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/545870043/diff/549860043/make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make
> File make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make (right):
>
>
LGTM, with some nits.
https://codereview.appspot.com/545870043/diff/549860043/make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make
File make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/545870043/diff/549860043/make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make#newcode10
make/doc-i18n-root-rules.make:10: find
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> With 2.21.0 done, I'd like to restart discussion about switching our
> development platform. To recall, we had proposals about using Gerrit
> [1] (don't miss follow-ups in March [2]) and GitLab / gitlab.com [3].
>
> Simultaneously the FSF has evaluated different Forge
On 4/15/20, 1:05 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Nomans name"
wrote:
Hi,
I’m trying to compile Lilypond-dev in Mac using MacPorts.
I’ve no idea how to get pass this version issue with FontForge.
#
ERROR: Please install required programs: /opt/local/bin/fontforge >= 20110222
With 2.21.0 done, I'd like to restart discussion about switching our
development platform. To recall, we had proposals about using Gerrit
[1] (don't miss follow-ups in March [2]) and GitLab / gitlab.com [3].
Simultaneously the FSF has evaluated different Forge solutions [4],
basically focusing on
Hi,
I’m trying to compile Lilypond-dev in Mac using MacPorts.
I’ve no idea how to get pass this version issue with FontForge.
#
ERROR: Please install required programs: /opt/local/bin/fontforge >= 20110222
(installed: )
#
Any help is much appreciated.
fontforge_issue
Description:
14 matches
Mail list logo
