On 12/4/09 12:02 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:

> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes:
> 
>> On 12/3/09 2:47 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> There are patches that are "obviously right" and a direct
>>> improvement.  If I had been in his place, I'd likely have committed a
>>> fix as well.  I'd likely have used "make && make doc" before doing
>>> so, but I doubt I would have waited for a review to come in.
>> 
>> make && make doc worked, because the snippet was still in the database
>> and not updated.
> 
> I was only talking about the commit that did not compile.  The general
> functionality patch went through review AFAICS and was basically just
> "cosmetically" changed.
> 

The patch that did not compile got messed up in the patching. I'm not sure
exactly what I did wrong in patching and submitting, but the patch was one
revision earlier than my final code.  So I had actually tested the code, but
somehow made an error with git.

Carl



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to