On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:27:38 -0800, Graham Percival
wrote:
I wonder if we can/should assume that no developer (i.e. person
with push ability) is using lily-git.tcl.
I think yes,
that it is reasonable to expect people to use the command-line git on their own
computer before using it to push.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 04:05:45AM +, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 12/2/11 9:01 PM, "gra...@percival-music.ca"
> wrote:
> >However, perhaps we need to explain this (and modify lily-git.tcl).
> >I'll take a look at lily-git.tcl and see how hard it would be to modify
> >it.
>
> We can make lily-gi
On 12/2/11 9:01 PM, "gra...@percival-music.ca"
wrote:
>On 2011/12/03 03:39:07, Keith wrote:
>> Putting commits on the local master branch is inviting an accidental
>push
>> directly to origin/master. Assume instead that developers have their
>work on
>> some other branch and merge it to stable b
On 2011/12/03 03:39:07, Keith wrote:
Putting commits on the local master branch is inviting an accidental
push
directly to origin/master. Assume instead that developers have their
work on
some other branch and merge it to stable before pushing.
But the lily-git.tcl tool automatically puts
http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/14024/lily/concurrent-hairpin-engraver.cc
File lily/concurrent-hairpin-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/14024/lily/concurrent-hairpin-engraver.cc#newcode78
lily/concurrent-hairpin-engraver.cc:78: for (vsize i = 0; i <
arri
Putting commits on the local master branch is inviting an accidental
push directly to origin/master. Assume instead that developers have
their work on some other branch and merge it to stable before pushing.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5440080/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itex
Hi David,
2011/12/3 David Nalesnik
> Hi again.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM, David Nalesnik
> wrote:
>
>>
>> (See attached file.)
>>
>>
> Oops--that only accidentally works for your problem example since I goofed
> the filtering.
>
> Replace the second definition of lst-2 in the file I la
first pass at updated instructions for staging.
It relies on the developer running
git format-patch
to create patches they want to apply to staging, since I don't know how
to do it the proper way. Reviews giving better command lines are
appreciated.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5440080/
___
Hey David,
This patch is way over my head, so I can't really comment on the details
of the implementation, but I just wanted to voice one concern for me
(and possibly other) algorithmic composers.
I have a lot of algorithms written that comb through music streams and
finagle with the elements.
Passes Make - reg test diffs attached here:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2069#c1
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5434104/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond
We've have two changes to the configure script, so please:
1. completely remove your build directory
2. go to your lilypond git dir, and run:
./autogen.sh --noconfigure
3. then run:
mkdir -p build/
cd build
../configure
If you do not follow those instructions, and end up with build
problem
Passes make bu make check throws up a programming error
see:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2067#c3
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5437101/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Passes make and make check
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
13 matches
Mail list logo
