Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 07:19:55PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: >> >> > No problem; I'm quite happy that Patchy is pulling his weight so >> > soon. :) >> >> Never mind Patchy... After the problematic commit, you made a release >> tag and everything. This is going to be one mess of a cleanup. > > eh? release/unstable should be strictly ahead of master, in a > completely different way than staging is strictly ahead of master. > > Isn't it possible to rebase staging on top of release/unstable? > IIRC we might lose the updated VERSION string, but that's easy to > fix. > > I'd like to keep the offifical 2.15.23, mainly for the regtest > comparison (that's pretty much the only reason I make releases, > after all!). I'm not concerned if we lose the release tag, or > even the release announcement (I can re-create that too).
Well, I've not been able to nicely redo the merges (git !@#$!#). So I just threw everything release-related out of staging. If you redo the merge into staging and the version number bump in staging, you should be fine. I made a slightly more complex fix in order to defuse the parser.cc/parser.hh regeneration conflict: they are now generated independently. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
