Hello,
On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>>> Keeping the staging-merge going would be about five people
>>> committing to 50€ a month. That is, of course, not enough for me to
>>> live on. It merely means that taking on this duty will not further
>>> re
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:10:16AM +, James wrote:
> Initialized empty Git repository in
> /home/james/Desktop/patchy/lilypond-autobuild/.git/
> fatal: attempt to fetch/clone from a shallow repository
> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
It wants to have a full
git clone git://git.sv
James writes:
> However when I run patchy I am getting
>
> --snip--
> james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh
> remote: Counting objects: 83, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done.
> remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0)
> Unpacking objects: 100
Hello. This error did not break the build process and I don't know
exactly what consequences it has.
While make doc:
...
cd ./out-www; texi2pdf -I ./out-www -I
/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation/out -I
/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation -I
/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation -
Moving to devel:
I think this bounty slush fund needs to happen soon-ish - there's been
two rounds of talking about it, which is great, but it will remain talk
unless someone does something. I also understand that David is in the
position of not wanting to do a full court press for organizing
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:01:50AM -0800, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> 1) Create an e-mail address "contrib...@lilypond.org" (this I can't
> do - can someone please do this).
Can't do.
> Seems simple, effective, and startable in the next two weeks. I'm
> sure it is not perfect, but LilyPond i
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:24:40 +, Graham Percival wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:01:50AM -0800, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
1) Create an e-mail address "contrib...@lilypond.org" (this I can't
do - can someone please do this).
Can't do.
Seems simple, effective, and startable in the nex
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:38:21AM -0800, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:24:40 +, Graham Percival wrote:
> >Check your email archives for our discussion on 2011 Dec 2 for all
> >the reasons I think this is a bad idea.
>
> Given that several users have already expressed t
Nice suggestions, Mike!
> 2) Create a PayPal account for said address with one and only one
> person, the € czar, who has access to it. This should be someone
> responsible and respectable.
Hmm. This actually means that PayPal is involved two times, stripping
of 2x3% or more...
What about hav
2012/1/25 Graham Percival :
> Check your email archives for our discussion on 2011 Dec 2 for all
> the reasons I think this is a bad idea.
Sorry, but i'm searching for 10 minutes and haven't found relevant
thread. Can you be more specific?
Janek
___
l
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> Nice suggestions, Mike!
>
>> 2) Create a PayPal account for said address with one and only one
>> person, the € czar, who has access to it. This should be someone
>> responsible and respectable.
>
> Hmm. This actually means that PayPal is involved two times, stripping
>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:29:22PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 2012/1/25 Graham Percival :
> > Check your email archives for our discussion on 2011 Dec 2 for all
> > the reasons I think this is a bad idea.
>
> Sorry, but i'm searching for 10 minutes and haven't found relevant
> thread. Can you
>> Can someone do a survey how other free software projects handle this?
>> We could also set up a Pledgie campaign, however, this also cuts off
>> 3% (or more) of the money.
>
> 97% of something is more than 100% of nothing.
Indeed.
What about setting up a whole bunch of lilypond crowdfunding
c
Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 8019ff784cd3aa6cc43b8eb8f29a621bc5800f5c
Merged staging, now at: f1b7a60cdb4c2f1d41329a1b3a6a01f4306f6467
Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
Success:../configure --disable-optimising
Success:
lilypond.patchy.gra...@gmail.com writes:
> Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 8019ff784cd3aa6cc43b8eb8f29a621bc5800f5c
>
> Merged staging, now at: f1b7a60cdb4c2f1d41329a1b3a6a01f4306f6467
>
> Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
>
> Success:../configure
David Kastrup writes:
>> *** FAILED BUILD ***
>>
>> nice make doc -j3 CPU_COUNT=3
>>
>> Previous good commit: 8019ff784cd3aa6cc43b8eb8f29a621bc5800f5c
>>
>> Current broken commit: f1b7a60cdb4c2f1d41329a1b3a6a01f4306f6467
>
> That would be the 2240 work. I did a full make check
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> *** FAILED BUILD ***
>>>
>>> nice make doc -j3 CPU_COUNT=3
>>>
>>> Previous good commit: 8019ff784cd3aa6cc43b8eb8f29a621bc5800f5c
>>>
>>> Current broken commit: f1b7a60cdb4c2f1d41329a1b3a6a01f4306f6467
>>
>> That would be the 224
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:29:51PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> That would be the 2240 work. I did a full make check and a build of the
> info documentation which in my experience is pretty much the same as a
> make doc but somewhat faster.
If it wasn't a build from scratch, it doesn't count.
>
2012/1/25 David Kastrup :
> Sorry again for the problem, but I am actually at a loss what to do if
> my guess about the translations is correct: do I copy over the relevant
> @lilypond passages and keep everything else the same (namely unupdated,
> and do I leave the @example code passages unchange
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, David Kastrup wrote:
> I do share Graham's concerns which have been previously hashed out
> in private discussions: an official money channel for LilyPond is
> not something easy to set up.
There are already existing free software umbrella organizations that
do this: one is SP
2012/1/25 Francisco Vila :
> 2012/1/25 David Kastrup :
>> Sorry again for the problem, but I am actually at a loss what to do if
>> my guess about the translations is correct: do I copy over the relevant
>> @lilypond passages and keep everything else the same (namely unupdated,
>> and do I leave th
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:09:25PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> There are already existing free software umbrella organizations that
> do this: one is SPI[1], another SFC[2].
Yes, I've considered suggesting (after Valentin suggested it to
me) that we might want to approach SFC, but it hasn't been
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:29:51PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> That would be the 2240 work. I did a full make check and a build of the
>> info documentation which in my experience is pretty much the same as a
>> make doc but somewhat faster.
>
> If it wasn't a build
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:20:18PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> WTF? That's definitely something in the changes file. I checked this
> and it compiled and I had code that made sure it compiled. With all the
> rebasing to make this fit better I must have displaced the relevant
> commit that expl
David Kastrup writes:
Seems like I really got mixed up with my builds. Turns out that my
changes.tely entry depends on the patch in
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2247> so I
pushed that as well as it is reasonably simple and well-contained.
No idea how this could get through
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:20:18PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> WTF? That's definitely something in the changes file. I checked this
>> and it compiled and I had code that made sure it compiled. With all the
>> rebasing to make this fit better I must have displaced
David Kastrup writes:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:20:18PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> WTF? That's definitely something in the changes file. I checked this
>>> and it compiled and I had code that made sure it compiled. With all the
>>> rebasing to make this fi
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>> I'll try doing this without messing up again. 15 minutes or so at
>> least.
>
> Go ahead. No diff to last staging regarding the result, but the fix
> commit has been pulled into the side branch.
James was so kind to check the previous fix I
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5564043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
I'm not certain if 2 days is a good number. Phil, after examining the
specific issues, would you say that 95% of real bug reports are handled
within 2 days? or should we make that 3 or 4 days instead?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5575047/
___
lilypo
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5569045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:29:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> I would want to avoid
> the situation where I have money on my hand I can't spend in good
> conscience.
In that case, only accept transfers which you feel cover existing
work (provided the sender realizes this), or transfers which ar
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: change bugreports expected response time (issue 5575047)
I'm not certain if 2 days is a good number. Phil, after examining the
specific issues, would you say that 95% of real bug reports ar
2012/1/24 Janek Warchoł :
>
> Xavier, may i ask you an unusual question? Feel free to ignore it.
> Why could you want to become "bounty hunter" (i.e. person that
> organizes bounties and sponsorship)?
This topic is not that easy, as expresses the numerous replies showing
the different concerns of
On 25/01/2012 5:21 AM, Francisco Vila wrote:
Hello. This error did not break the build process and I don't know
exactly what consequences it has.
While make doc:
...
cd ./out-www; texi2pdf -I ./out-www -I
/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation/out -I
/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation
35 matches
Mail list logo
