- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Path to LilyPond 2.18
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
I think 3386 is a simple revert, but don't
have time to do it right now.
We
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:22:11 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
I am pretty
sure that my suggestion on your rietveld review will work.
I get an error with make:
define-grobs.scm:29:3: Unbound variable:
grob::simple-horizontal-skylines-from-x-extent
Shucksie darn. I see now
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:38:17 -0700, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
Could someone please send me minimal examples of things going wrong?
The issues on the tracker that are not marked Fixed have minimal examples of
things still going wrong.
On 6 juin 2013, at 06:52, Keith OHara
Hi folks,
since the call for stabilization/freeze more or less in April, there has
been quite a bit of work on finding and dealing with regressions.
The amount that have cropped up there is really sobering. In particular
with regard to circular dependencies, it looks like a whack-a-mole game
David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:07 PM
So for better or worse, we need to start wrapping up what we are going
to call our next stable release.
I propose calling the next developer release 2.17.95 to send out the
message that finish-up work is called for: those translators who
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Cc: translati...@lilynet.net; lilypond-u...@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:07 PM
Subject: Path to LilyPond 2.18
Hi folks,
since the call for stabilization/freeze more or less in April
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
I propose calling the next developer release 2.17.95 to send out the
message that finish-up work is called for:
I believe we need to get fixes for 3363 and 3386 into the code base
before cutting a release candidate.
I
I'd prefer to declare 2.17.next_increment as a release candidate; let
that stand and if it's OK, cut 17.95 as a final RC, then run 2.18.0.
Well, in emacs the first release candidate has .95, and I think this
is a good decision. And I vote against a `final' RC; this makes too
much pressure.
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
I believe we need to get fixes for 3363 and 3386 into the code base before
cutting a release candidate.
Issue 3363, the scripts on cross-staff things being grossly misplaced,
looks simple, but requires figuring out quite a lot of the sequencing
of
On 6 juin 2013, at 06:52, Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
I believe we need to get fixes for 3363 and 3386 into the code base before
cutting a release candidate.
Issue 3363, the scripts on cross-staff things being grossly misplaced,
10 matches
Mail list logo
