Le jeudi 16 juillet 2009 à 09:40 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> However, when non-snippet text is changed, added, or removed from the
> english documentation, no corresponding changes should be made to the
> translated versions of the documentation.
All right, this is clearer.
Cheers,
John
_
On 7/16/09 9:31 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
>
>> So, just to make sure I'm clear on this, I'd like to propose the following
>> for addition to the CG:
>>
>> When a snippet is changed or deleted from the english documentation, the
>> same change (or deletion) should be applied to all translat
Le jeudi 16 juillet 2009 à 09:12 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> I tried running
>
> make ISOLANG=fr snippet-update
>
> from Documentation/. It ran, but most of the files were not able to be
> updated because they had a different snippet count. So at the present time,
> make snippet-update is
On 7/15/09 9:48 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> Le mardi 14 juillet 2009 à 16:21 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>> Hmm -- I read through the CG and missed it. Now that I know what I'm
>> looking for, I see where it is. I'll add something to the CG.
>
> Thanks. The general problem when I write
Le mardi 14 juillet 2009 à 16:21 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> Hmm -- I read through the CG and missed it. Now that I know what I'm
> looking for, I see where it is. I'll add something to the CG.
Thanks. The general problem when I write instructions in the CG (besides
the fact that I still ha
On 7/14/09 4:11 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/7/14 Carl Sorensen :
>
>> Can we get something in the CG about this problem, and how to run
>> update-snippets.py to fix things, or at least a statement about the easiest
>> way to solve the problem?
>
> It's already mentioned in CG (in passin
2009/7/14 Carl Sorensen :
> Can we get something in the CG about this problem, and how to run
> update-snippets.py to fix things, or at least a statement about the easiest
> way to solve the problem?
It's already mentioned in CG (in passing), but I got the impression
when I stumbled across it for
On 7/10/09 3:37 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
> I'm trying to finish up the revisions to the autobeaming code.
>
> I've got it working just fine when I compile from the command line.
>
> But when snippets are included in the docs, they seem to compile different
> than from the command line.
>
On 7/10/09 6:38 PM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Graham Percival :
>> Similiar stuff has happened to me, but since it involves the build
>> process, I never bothered trying to track down the problem. I
>> just do a make clean, make web-clean (that's probably doc-clean
>> now), and rege
2009/7/11 Graham Percival :
> Similiar stuff has happened to me, but since it involves the build
> process, I never bothered trying to track down the problem. I
> just do a make clean, make web-clean (that's probably doc-clean
> now), and regenerate everything.
>
> You could _try_ touching rhythms
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 05:06:19PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> But in the docs, it does not. I suspect it's actually not compiling at all,
> but just being included from the database somehow. And the LilyPond output
> is from a buggy previous version that I was working on. But I don't know
2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen :
> The difference is two lines of comments. The one that is showing up in the
> docs is an older version than the one that is currently in rhythms.itely.
>
> Please note that the snippet is not an included file, but is actually part
> of the text in rhythms.itely. It's as
On 7/10/09 4:58 PM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen :
>> Ahh -- there is a clue here that I hadn't noticed before. The comments in
>> the code are different in the snippet from rhythms.itely and the doc
>> output.
>>
>> That means that the snippet in rhythms.itely is *not*
2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen :
> Ahh -- there is a clue here that I hadn't noticed before. The comments in
> the code are different in the snippet from rhythms.itely and the doc
> output.
>
> That means that the snippet in rhythms.itely is *not* the one that is being
> compiled for the docs.
What are
On 7/10/09 4:13 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> When run from the command line, the output that results is attached as
>> FromCommandLine.png.
>
> Are you running
> lilypond foo.ly
> ? That will call the lilypond from you
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> When run from the command line, the output that results is attached as
> FromCommandLine.png.
Are you running
lilypond foo.ly
? That will call the lilypond from your PATH, which is probably a
GUB version. Alternatively, if you
On 7/10/09 3:58 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/09 3:43 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:37:36PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> Is there a different version of LilyPond called when make doc is running? I
>>> can't figure out what the story is. Any
2009/7/10 Carl Sorensen :
> I'll take a snippet that's in the docs (not one that's included as a file),
> copy it to a .ly file, wrap it in \relative c''{}, and everything works
> fine.
>
> But when I compile the docs with make doc, the snippet doesn't work.
Can you explain in more detail how it
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:37:36PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Is there a different version of LilyPond called when make doc is running? I
> can't figure out what the story is. Any clues would be appreciated.
There's different formatting options.
- you can see (probably) the right options in
I'm trying to finish up the revisions to the autobeaming code.
I've got it working just fine when I compile from the command line.
But when snippets are included in the docs, they seem to compile different
than from the command line.
I'll take a snippet that's in the docs (not one that's include
20 matches
Mail list logo
