On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
My apologies; my old eyes noticed the "bin-clean" target, but
skipped over the "bin" in the bottom list.
Cheers
,- Graham
___
l
Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:38 PM
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
James (or another docs guru) - any chance of adding this to the CG
(probably in 4.5.1 Using make)
The command "make bin" will check to see whether any changes have
been made in the
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; "Ian Hulin"
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Patch
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Patch attached. Not convinced it's worth a Rietveld for essentially
> one line? Works on my system.
Thanks, pushed as soon as I'm at a real internet connection[1].
Could you add it to
make help
and the CG?
[1] BC Ferries gives fre
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; "Ian Hulin"
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
---
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Ian Hulin"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
>
> >1+ for Graham's proposal, provi
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Hulin"
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trev
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
>
>
>> 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
>>>
>>> If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
>>> as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
>>> So you nee
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Holmes"
To: "Graham Percival" ; "Trevor Daniels"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival&qu
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wro
2011/7/23 Trevor Daniels :
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
>
>> 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
>>>
>>> If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
>>> as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
>>> So you need to see the relevant messages o
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> If you have changed only one or two C++ routines
> the compile and link part of make take only a few seconds.
> There's no point in letting it go on to check all the doc files.
ok, let's publicize the "build on bin/lilypond" targ
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you need to see the relevant messages on the console
to determine this.
I'm not su
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels :
> In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely what
> the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
>
> But I have one comment. By far the commonest use of make
> by developers is to compile the most recent change to C++
> source during the
2011/7/21 Graham Percival :
> Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
> certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
In my case it is, i guess :)
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gn
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:49:01AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
>
> >Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
> >certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
>
> In my case it's because I have dif
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:07:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I proposed to adopt the linux/git/automake convention of using silent
> rules so that you get something like
>
> make
> CC lily/foo.c
> ..
> LB Documentation/web.texi
> LB Documentation/notation.texi
>
> or what you cu
Trevor Daniels writes:
>> Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
>> certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
>
> In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding precisely
> what the effect of this change will be on any work I do.
+1
I pr
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:37 AM
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
In my case it's because I have difficulty in understanding
precisely what the effect of this change will be o
Not much response from the previous GOP-PROP 5 (update); I'm not
certain if "silence is a form of consent" [1] in this context.
[1] true story from a friend's lifeguard training. If somebody if
choking but declines any help, the lifeguard (in Canada, at least)
is legally obliged to watch the pers
20 matches
Mail list logo
