Tomohiro Tatejima writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Originally my intention was to point out an inconsistency that the
> feature is not included in stable branch while it is listed in changes
> document.
> Of course I will be glad if it is included, but whether included or
> not is not the main subject.
>
Hello all,
Originally my intention was to point out an inconsistency that the
feature is not included in stable branch while it is listed in changes
document.
Of course I will be glad if it is included, but whether included or
not is not the main subject.
If there is any comment (in any posts from
Joram writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> The same as before, except that I am a whole lot more pissed.
>
> I am sorry. I leave this discussion. It does not lead anywhere.
That's what I told everybody repeatedly, but it takes hours for every
single one to take notice.
Of course that holds up review work m
Hi David,
> The same as before, except that I am a whole lot more pissed.
I am sorry. I leave this discussion. It does not lead anywhere.
Best,
Joram
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypon
Joram writes:
> Hi David,
>
> I appreciate your work on lilypond and I have no reason to doubt your
> capability as the release manager for the upcoming 2.20 release.
>
> What is intransparent to me is, how the inclusion of patches into
> lilypond is decided. Is there a defined procedure?
For th
Hi David,
I appreciate your work on lilypond and I have no reason to doubt your
capability as the release manager for the upcoming 2.20 release.
What is intransparent to me is, how the inclusion of patches into
lilypond is decided. Is there a defined procedure? I think it is obvious
that someone
Joram writes:
> Hi David,
>
> unfortunately I expected this inappropriate reaction.
>
>> Nobody, by the way, bothering to address this on a technical level.
>
> Because Étienne did as far as he can by proposing a patch and others
> (like me) can not address it. Especially not without knowning wha
Hi David,
unfortunately I expected this inappropriate reaction.
> Nobody, by the way, bothering to address this on a technical level.
Because Étienne did as far as he can by proposing a patch and others
(like me) can not address it. Especially not without knowning what is
wrong with his patch in
Joram writes:
> Hi David, Étienne et al.
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 09:46 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Étienne Beaulé writes:
>>
>>> What is the status of this? ...
>> You don't make a better case by repeating yourself endlessly. I heard
>> what you said the last half dozen times.
>
>
> But Étienne is
Hi David, Étienne et al.
Am 02.12.2017 um 09:46 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Étienne Beaulé writes:
>
>> What is the status of this? ...
> You don't make a better case by repeating yourself endlessly. I heard
> what you said the last half dozen times.
But Étienne is right that the status is uncle
Étienne Beaulé writes:
> What is the status of this? It is possible to include by running "git
> merge dcb458c225" in the stable branch. I know I'd like it included in the
> next stable :)
You don't make a better case by repeating yourself endlessly. I heard
what you said the last half dozen ti
11 matches
Mail list logo
