This is driving me mad. I think that, with the new policy of committing our own changes to input/lsr it is impossible to avoid conflicts between lilypond/translation and master.
Sooner or later, all the changes and updates made to the lilypond/translation branch will have to be merged into master, agreed? otherwise the upcoming releases will have outdated translations no matter what we do there. Besides, frequent merges from master into lilypond/translation are necessary. Otherwise our check scripts do not take into account the latest changes made into master. Agreed? So IMHO your eyes have to be used to see merges _not_ caused by previous changes+pull, but rather intentional ones, previous to the actual updates. I got used to this policy in late 2008 when 2.12 was to be released and I wanted to have an up-to-date translation, which I usually did on Mondays. But John always merged it before Mondays so the translation status was never 100% done. I can live with this because it's a matter of waiting a week to be updated again. But now comes the issue of LSR, whose policy for us is now to commit and push our own changes, but either I don't understand it well or Neil's updates are always made in the meantime between two merges, so these changes are being made always in both branches simultaneously which leads to hundredths of conflicts. Comments appreciated. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
