"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Well, my .git/config has
>> [remote "origin"]
>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>> url = ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond.git
>> fetch = +refs/heads/dev/staging:refs/remotes
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>>And now I have two extra branches (staging/HEAD and
>>origin/dev/staging/HEAD) that I can't
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
> And now I have two extra branches (staging/HEAD and
> origin/dev/staging/HEAD) that I can't seem to get rid of. Any
> suggestions?
>
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> And now I have two extra branches (staging/HEAD and origin/dev/staging/HEAD)
>> that I can't seem to get rid of. Any suggestions?
>
> Use an editor on .git/config to clean up, and find and delete those
>
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> And now I have two extra branches (staging/HEAD and origin/dev/staging/HEAD)
> that I can't seem to get rid of. Any suggestions?
Use an editor on .git/config to clean up, and find and delete those
files from .git/refs that represent the bad branches.
Sometime
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Colin Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-10-25 05:40 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
Hey all,
I tried:
git remote add -ft dev/staging -m dev/staging stagin
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 11-10-25 05:40 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I tried:
>>>
>>> git remote add -ft dev/staging -m dev/staging staging
>>> git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git/
That adds a separate r
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Colin Campbell wrote:
> On 11-10-25 05:40 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I tried:
>>
>> git remote add -ft dev/staging -m dev/staging staging
>> git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git/
>>
>> And then
>>
>> git branch foo staging/dev/staging
>> git c
On 11-10-25 05:40 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
Hey all,
I tried:
git remote add -ft dev/staging -m dev/staging staging
git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git/
And then
git branch foo staging/dev/staging
git checkout foo
git apply foo.diff (where foo.diff are all of my changes)
git commit -a
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:49:58 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:56:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> git mikesol@mikesol-laptop:~/lilypond-git$ git rebase
origin/dev/staging
> fatal: Needed a single revision
> in
Graham Percival writes:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:56:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>> > git mikesol@mikesol-laptop:~/lilypond-git$ git rebase origin/dev/staging
>> > fatal: Needed a single revision
>> > invalid upstream origin/dev/staging
>>
>> git b
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:56:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
> > git mikesol@mikesol-laptop:~/lilypond-git$ git rebase origin/dev/staging
> > fatal: Needed a single revision
> > invalid upstream origin/dev/staging
>
> git branch -r lists nothing? Anyhow: I
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>>
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> git fetch
> git rebase origin/dev/stagin
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
git fetch
git rebase origin/dev/staging
git push origin HEAD:dev/staging
>>>
>>> From the rebase
On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:05 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
>> 2) A reminder in 10.9.5 to change versions when moving stuff to
>> Documents/snippets/new would be great too.
>
> I am not sure whether that is not something Graham wants to do himself.
> However, I think it is harmless enough to do it o
On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> git fetch
>>> git rebase origin/dev/staging
>>> git push origin HEAD:dev/staging
>>
>> From the rebase command on my local branch, I got:
>>
>> fat
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> git fetch
>> git rebase origin/dev/staging
>> git push origin HEAD:dev/staging
>
> From the rebase command on my local branch, I got:
>
> fatal: Needed a single revision
> invalid upstream origin/dev/staging
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> git fetch
> git rebase origin/dev/staging
> git push origin HEAD:dev/staging
>From the rebase command on my local branch, I got:
fatal: Needed a single revision
invalid upstream origin/dev/staging
Any hints on what to do?
Cheers,
MS
_
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> I now see what the problem is. I had updated the version number all
> the snippets that needed updating, but all of the offending snippets
> are in the .tely files. The \version statement for these snippets is
> not in the snippets themselves (I thought they we
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> 3) When patches come out and are on review, especially when the
> patches go through the review cycle more than once, it'd be great if
> this sort of thing were addressed. Originally I didn't add convert-ly
> rules because I wasn't 100% sure on the syntax and wa
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that eventually, somebody else _will_ run
>>> scripts/auxiliar/update-with-convert-ly and then those files get
>>> "fixed" again if th
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> The problem is that eventually, somebody else _will_ run
>> scripts/auxiliar/update-with-convert-ly and then those files get
>> "fixed" again if the version string indicates they have not yet been
>> fixed.
>
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>>
On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Mike has pushed directly 671b7b634088
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
Mike has pushed directly 671b7b63408893c33b4c1f196e87db19a7dbcd1e to
master, as far as I can see
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike has pushed directly 671b7b63408893c33b4c1f196e87db19a7dbcd1e to
>>> master, as far as I can see without any discussion and without going
>>
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> Mike has pushed directly 671b7b63408893c33b4c1f196e87db19a7dbcd1e to
>> master, as far as I can see without any discussion and without going
>> through staging.
>>
>
> This got to patch push after going
On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Mike has pushed directly 671b7b63408893c33b4c1f196e87db19a7dbcd1e to
> master, as far as I can see without any discussion and without going
> through staging.
>
This got to patch push after going through a countdown.
As for staging, I'm stil
28 matches
Mail list logo
