Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Quoting Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There are no doc fixes going into master, and I plan on keeping it
that way until 2.12 is out.
That's important news for people like me, who occasionally keep
fixing small things in the documentation. Should I instead do that
Quoting Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
John Mandereau wrote:
1) We keep both branches independent, and we'll rebase lilypond/gdp on
top of master after stable/2.12 has been derived from master. This will
require reverting in master some translations and possible doc fixes
that were/will
John Mandereau wrote:
1) We keep both branches independent, and we'll rebase lilypond/gdp on
top of master after stable/2.12 has been derived from master. This will
require reverting in master some translations and possible doc fixes
that were/will be committed to both master and lilypond/gdp, j
Hi,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, John Mandereau wrote:
> 1) We keep both branches independent, and we'll rebase lilypond/gdp on
> top of master after stable/2.12 has been derived from master. This will
> require reverting in master some translations and possible doc fixes
> that were/will be committe
Hi,
As this issue appeared in a recent discussion onthe list, I wonder about
how to handle lilypond/gdp and master branches. I see two possible
options:
1) We keep both branches independent, and we'll rebase lilypond/gdp on
top of master after stable/2.12 has been derived from master. This will
