Le vendredi 19 mai 2023 à 23:00 -0600, Colin Campbell a écrit : > The result of git bisect: > > 1db87a2537d6d5ef6631cfbda63954c0a6ee095 is the first bad commit > commit d1db87a2537d6d5ef6631cfbda63954c0a6ee095 > Author: Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> > Date: Mon Apr 3 22:57:26 2023 +0200 > > Doc: Avoid full stop in node names > > This propagates the changes from commit c245707e4f to the translations. > > Documentation/ca/learning/common-notation.itely | 2 +- > Documentation/de/learning/common-notation.itely | 2 +- > Documentation/es/learning/common-notation.itely | 2 +- > Documentation/it/learning/common-notation.itely | 2 +- > Documentation/ja/learning/common-notation.itely | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Uh, that does not make a lot of sense. This is purely a doc patch, it can't have caused a bug in LilyPond itself. Either the failure is flaky (but it didn't seem to be), or something is wrong in the way you bisected. In particular, are you sure that the commit you passed to "git bisect good" was a commit old enough to *not* reproduce the bug? Did you remember to call "make" at each iteration to recompile the C++ code? (Sorry if that's obvious.)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
