Hi all
I don't have any money to contribute, nor any coding capability, so
this is not a serious request in anything but tone of voice. :(
It's extremely likely that this request is an obvious one, and that it's
been requested in exactly this way many times, and has never been done
because of imp
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:10:26PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 18.08 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > The first step is to make it
> > work in "make website", which is infinitely easier than trying
> > to do anything in GUB. This is a relatively easy thi
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 18.08 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> Hmm. I can't answer this directly, but I'll pass along my
> considerations:
>
> - if you try to compile GUB on debian unstable (or any other
> recent distro), you will likely encounter odd compile failures.
> These are
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 19.26 +0200, David Kastrup ha scritto:
> Build numbers are not all that relevant for _us_ as far as I can tell.
> They distinguish different versions compiled from the _same_ canonical
> source (so they don't belong into our VERSION file at any rate).
> Changes may be
Graham Percival writes:
> Hmm. I can't answer this directly, but I'll pass along my
> considerations:
>
> - if you try to compile GUB on debian unstable (or any other
> recent distro), you will likely encounter odd compile failures.
> These are important to fix at some point in time (otherwi
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:36:14PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > Regardless of the question of having a tuple of four values, it
> > would be nice to support build numbers, i.e. 2.15.43-2:
> > http://code.google.com/p/lily
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> Regardless of the question of having a tuple of four values, it
> would be nice to support build numbers, i.e. 2.15.43-2:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=977
>
> This definitely requires work in both lil
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 04:15:34PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> I'm sometimes slow to react (up to one week for making a patch), but I'm
> willing to help with version number management in the build system if
> this definitely appears to be the route to go with.
Regardless of the question of hav
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:21:34PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> >> If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
>> >> There is no point dragging it along as purely dead weight we should not
>> >> be using.
>> >
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 15.21 +0200, David Kastrup ha scritto:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
> >> There is no point dragging it along as purely dead wei
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:21:34PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> >> If it is non-operative, it should be either made operative or removed.
> >> There is no point dragging it along as purely dead weight we should not
> >> be using.
> >
> > Sure, patches appreciated.
>
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> >> What versioning should I be using for the release
>> >> candidates? Numerically, one has the options to start with
>> >>
>> >> 2.15.95
>> >
>> > why not 2.15.42 ?
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:37:58PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> >> What versioning should I be using for the release
> >> candidates? Numerically, one has the options to start with
> >>
> >> 2.15.95
> >
> > why not 2.15.42 ?
>
> Because the 2.16 branch is supposed t
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:31:55PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> At the time the 2.16 branch will be cut, the versioning for the unstable
>> branch will need to advance to 2.17 in order to maintain an ordered
>> relation between version numbers and LilyPond language
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:31:55PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> At the time the 2.16 branch will be cut, the versioning for the unstable
> branch will need to advance to 2.17 in order to maintain an ordered
> relation between version numbers and LilyPond language.
Do you mean 2.16 instead of 2
- Original Message -
From: "Helge Kruse"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Enc2ly: converter from Encore to Lilypond (GPLv3+)
Am 30.07.2012 22:30, schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
See https://github.com/hanwen/enc2ly/blob/master/enc2ly.go
Results in: 404 This is
16 matches
Mail list logo
