Federico Bruni writes:
> Il giorno mer 22 lug 2015 alle 0:22, Trevor Daniels
> ha scritto:
>> My conclusion is that we can no longer rely on having a working
>> Issues DB at SourceForge before the service at Google Code ceases,
>> and must therefore aim to transfer the DB directly to our VM at
>
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/254330043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Il giorno mer 22 lug 2015 alle 0:22, Trevor Daniels
ha scritto:
My conclusion is that we can no longer rely on having a working
Issues DB at SourceForge before the service at Google Code ceases,
and must therefore aim to transfer the DB directly to our VM at
Savannah. Let's hope that the migr
On 2015/07/21 19:37:21, dak wrote:
So if this patch needs a 1-line change to be ok, no problem with doing
that.
Or is there?
LGTM. No need to lift a finger. I just wanted to register that Keith's
comments weren't entirely unappreciated.
https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/
_
Hi
A note to update you on progress in migrating our Issues DB away from Google
Code. First a reminder that Google Code goes read-only on 24 August 2015, less
than 5 weeks away. At that point issue recording and LilyPond development will
cease, as least in the current form, unless we have re-
On 2015/07/21 18:20:13, Dan Eble wrote:
this->f() is sometimes necessary in templates (I recall), but in those
cases the
compiler warns about ambiguity when it is omitted.
I prefer not to see this-> where it is unnecessary, however Keith does
have a
good point about extra clarity in commen
this->f() is sometimes necessary in templates (I recall), but in those
cases the compiler warns about ambiguity when it is omitted.
I prefer not to see this-> where it is unnecessary, however Keith does
have a good point about extra clarity in comments.
https://codereview.appspot.com/258870043/
On 2015/07/21 16:51:21, dak wrote:
Well, we certainly would want to have test-patchy work again
eventually, using
the different server and issue tracker.
But then if we do get it to work again, getting the documentation back
is just a
revert away.
Exactly
As long as this change stays
Well, we certainly would want to have test-patchy work again eventually,
using the different server and issue tracker.
But then if we do get it to work again, getting the documentation back
is just a revert away.
As long as this change stays essentially with one commit and issue.
https://codere
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/256860044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
10 matches
Mail list logo