On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > "m...@apollinemike.com" <m...@apollinemike.com> writes: > >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> The problem is that eventually, somebody else _will_ run >>> scripts/auxiliar/update-with-convert-ly and then those files get >>> "fixed" again if the version string indicates they have not yet been >>> fixed. >>> >>> I am currently stalled exactly because running this script as part of >>> _my_ changes will change a number of files which are none of my >>> beeswax. >> >> I'll be able to post a patch to fix this w/in the next 18ish hours. > > Thanks.
I now see what the problem is. I had updated the version number all the snippets that needed updating, but all of the offending snippets are in the .tely files. The \version statement for these snippets is not in the snippets themselves (I thought they were versionless when I updated them) but rather at the top of the .tely files. A few things: 1) If someone could please update 10.9.5 to talk about how versioning works in the .tely files, that would help a lot. 2) A reminder in 10.9.5 to change versions when moving stuff to Documents/snippets/new would be great too. 3) When patches come out and are on review, especially when the patches go through the review cycle more than once, it'd be great if this sort of thing were addressed. Originally I didn't add convert-ly rules because I wasn't 100% sure on the syntax and wanted to wait till bugs were out and until syntax was stable before adding them. I now realize this is a bad idea. I am not saying that anyone else could have spotted at the outset how bad this idea was nor that this is anyone's responsibility but my own. What I'm saying is that, if you notice an omission in your review, please don't hesitate to speak up. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
