LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/316360043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, James wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 22/03/17 15:32, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "David Nalesnik"
>>
>> To: "James"
>> Cc: "Dev"
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: PATCHES - Countdown for Wednesday March 22nd
>>
Hello,
On 22/03/17 15:32, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "David Nalesnik"
To: "James"
Cc: "Dev"
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: PATCHES - Countdown for Wednesday March 22nd
Hi James,
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:27 AM, James wrote:
Hello,
Here
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 11:18, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> My understanding of copyright is that the date range applies to the
> published work as a whole, and does not operate on the granularity of
> individual components.
I am told there should be all years it has been published.
> Furthermore, the
Downloaded binary.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:38 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Trevor, did you compile it from scratch or are you using the packaged
> binary?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Trevor wrote:
> > I don't know enough to be very helpful, but I can report that on Ubuntu,
> I
> >
Trevor, did you compile it from scratch or are you using the packaged binary?
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Trevor wrote:
> I don't know enough to be very helpful, but I can report that on Ubuntu, I
> also see "9925953 90234" from strace.
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:33 AM Han-Wen N
> A question I have is then: how can we ensure this is actually done
> *every* year? It actually *is* embarrassing that the released
> versions give a wrong year in the output of lilypond --version.
This is a different issue. Right now, the version number shown in
`--version' must be updated man
Am 23.03.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> - Original Message - From: "Andrew Bernard"
>
> To: "Urs Liska" ; "Devel"
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Update copyright for 2016/17 files, and script (issue
> 320390043by g...@ursliska.de)
>
>
>> Hi Urs,
>>
>> My
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Bernard"
To: "Urs Liska" ; "Devel"
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Update copyright for 2016/17 files, and script (issue
320390043by g...@ursliska.de)
Hi Urs,
My understanding of copyright is that the date range applies to th
I don't know enough to be very helpful, but I can report that on Ubuntu, I
also see "9925953 90234" from strace.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:33 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> the repeating syscall is the read, on the same file descriptor. If
> fontconfig failed a cache, you'd more likely see
Hi Urs,
My understanding of copyright is that the date range applies to the
published work as a whole, and does not operate on the granularity of
individual components. Furthermore, there is no legal requirement to
actually have a copyright notice at all, as works are naturally copyright
nowadays,
> So if we do have a script that automatically updates only changed
> files nothing speaks against using it, isn't it?
Well, yes, but I don't see an advantage. Today, using gitk or
something similar, you can very easily track changes. Having
identical copyright notices in all files of lilypond
Am 23.03.2017 um 08:19 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> Unfortunately I don't find a link right now, but it is my
>> understanding that the copyright notice should only be updated to
>> files that have actually been modified.
> AFAIK, this is not correct. The copyright is applied to the *package*
> li
> Unfortunately I don't find a link right now, but it is my
> understanding that the copyright notice should only be updated to
> files that have actually been modified.
AFAIK, this is not correct. The copyright is applied to the *package*
lilypond, so if *any* file changes, the copyright notice
Am 23.03.2017 um 01:50 schrieb gra...@percival-music.ca:
> Could you separate the "Run script xyz" changes from the changes to
> script(s)? That would help to see exactly what's happening here.
Yes, I'll do so, but this patch isn't really intended to be merged as-is
anyway.
>
>
> https://coder
15 matches
Mail list logo
