On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 07:42:34PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 20.51 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > I was particularly thinking of the download links and links to
> > docs (on both the Downloads page and the Development page). That
> > needs to do build nu
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 20.51 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> I was particularly thinking of the download links and links to
> docs (on both the Downloads page and the Development page). That
> needs to do build number -> python -> texinfo macros -> html. But
> at least it's fully deb
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
