LGTM, it can be pushed directly to staging.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2012/05/31 00:01:55, dak wrote:
That's not the Google tracker issue number, but the Rietveld issue
number.
The Google tracker number would have been 2534 .
Please enter a valid google tracker issue number (or enter nothing to
create a new issue): 2534
WARNING: could not change issue label
[copy of message posted to devel list]
On 2012/05/30 21:45:58, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Please enter a valid google tracker issue number (or enter nothing to
create a
new issue): 6206071
That's not the Google tracker issue number, but the Rietveld issue
number.
The Google tracker num
joseph.wakel...@gmail.com writes:
> I have always been using git-cl but for all patches after the first I
> got an error message after entering the google tracker issue number:
>
> ---
> We were not able to associate this patch with a google tracker issue.
> Please enter a valid google tracker
I have always been using git-cl but for all patches after the first I
got an error message after entering the google tracker issue number:
---
We were not able to associate this patch with a google tracker issue.
Please enter a valid google tracker issue number (or enter nothing to
create a n
oh, and since you didn't use our custom git-cl to upload this patch,
you'll need to manually change the relevant issue to patch-new, or else
this will never get pushed.
It would be nice if we had a dedicated mentor for you, but unfortunately
we don't so this warning is the best we can do for you.
On 2012/05/30 21:16:09, Graham Percival wrote:
The @warning{}
... I'm blind. Give me 2 seconds to fix that.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypo
ok. The @warning{} suggestion was aimed at making it much more visible,
but if you think it's visible enough as-is then I'm not going to
complain -- if we use too many @warning{}s then they'll lose their
effectiveness.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
On 2012/05/30 16:55:17, Graham Percival wrote:
I'm not convinced that the added text will help. How about instead
you change
it to
... done :-)
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https:/
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/diff/6001/Documentation/included/compile.itexi
File Documentation/included/compile.itexi (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/diff/6001/Documentation/included/compile.itexi#newcode646
Documentation/included/compile.itexi:646: easily take an hour
Latest patches update as suggested The build section has a link to
4.6.2 and I've slightly tweaked the language of the latter section as
well as mentioning the doc-stage-1 build option.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailin
Reviewers: ,
Message:
As per earlier discussion on devel list, this patch just adds a little
bit of extra info on the make process, noting the documentation build
commands and the possible length of build times.
Basically it's to stop other people getting worried as I did when a
single step of t
On 2012/05/16 12:05:19, Graham Percival wrote:
Don't we have a different place that discusses the doc-related build
stuff?
You're right; it's in Section 4.6.2. It's not necessarily obvious/easy
to find as Section 4.6 is simply titled 'post-compilation options'.
I'll tweak as you suggest, with
http://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/diff/1/Documentation/included/compile.itexi
File Documentation/included/compile.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/diff/1/Documentation/included/compile.itexi#newcode464
Documentation/included/compile.itexi:464: or to build only the PDF
doc
14 matches
Mail list logo
