I keep getting these messages although David has pushed the patch. How can I
(or someone) make the tracker aware of the push?
Urs
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: lilyp...@googlecode.com
Gesendet: Sat Dec 28 09:48:40 MEZ 2013
An: lilyli...@googlemail.com
Betreff: Re: Issue 3719
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
I keep getting these messages although David has pushed the patch. How
can I (or someone) make the tracker aware of the push?
Usually the state should be updated by the pusher. If you are aware of
an inconsistency, however, it won't go away by ignoring
On 28/12/13 08:52, Urs Liska wrote:
I keep getting these messages although David has pushed the patch. How can I
(or someone) make the tracker aware of the push?
Urs
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: lilyp...@googlecode.com
Gesendet: Sat Dec 28 09:48:40 MEZ 2013
An:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org schrieb:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
I keep getting these messages although David has pushed the patch.
How
can I (or someone) make the tracker aware of the push?
Usually the state should be updated by the pusher. If you are aware of
an inconsistency,
Am 22.12.2013 12:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 22.12.2013 10:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
I see that you used @code{vi} and @code{git-cl} rather than @command{vi}
and @command{git-cl}: any particular reason for that?
I was suggested to use that on
Am 23.12.2013 13:02, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 23.12.2013 12:45, schrieb Urs Liska:
Attached is an updated patch using @command instead of @code.
Rebased patch passes make doc (issues in other subthread solved).
Thanks for pushing
Urs
Sorry, found
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 23.12.2013 13:02, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 23.12.2013 12:45, schrieb Urs Liska:
Attached is an updated patch using @command instead of @code.
Rebased patch passes make doc (issues in other subthread solved).
On 23/12/13 12:26, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 23.12.2013 13:02, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 23.12.2013 12:45, schrieb Urs Liska:
Attached is an updated patch using @command instead of @code.
Rebased patch passes make doc (issues in other subthread solved).
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
On 23/12/13 12:26, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 23.12.2013 13:02, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 23.12.2013 12:45, schrieb Urs Liska:
Attached is an updated patch using @command instead of @code.
Rebased patch passes make doc
Would somebody please be so kind and push the attached patch.
I rebased on origin/master and ran ct-section source-code.
make doc gave an error, but this pointed to
fatal error: failed files: 60/lily-338514d2.ly
so I think I can ignore this?
Urs
Original-Nachricht
Betreff:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Would somebody please be so kind and push the attached patch.
I rebased on origin/master and ran ct-section source-code.
make doc gave an error, but this pointed to
fatal error: failed files: 60/lily-338514d2.ly
so I think I can ignore this?
Am 22.12.2013 10:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Would somebody please be so kind and push the attached patch.
I rebased on origin/master and ran ct-section source-code.
make doc gave an error, but this pointed to
fatal error: failed files:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 22.12.2013 10:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
I see that you used @code{vi} and @code{git-cl} rather than @command{vi}
and @command{git-cl}: any particular reason for that?
I was suggested to use that on Rietveld.
So, no, no particular reason.
Yes, I
Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: Issue 3719 in lilypond: Patch: CG: Add comment
about git-cl editor
Datum: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:13:54 +0100
Von: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org
An: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
Am 22.12.2013 11:59, schrieb Urs Liska:
I don't see
14 matches
Mail list logo
