David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> 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 and a build of the >> info documentation which in my experience is pretty much the same as a >> make doc but somewhat faster. Seems that the similarity does not go >> deep enough. My guess is that translations may not be covered. >> >> Apologies. >> >> I'll be fixing this, but it will take several hours to make a doc build >> on my current setup. Do you have the log files for the failed runs, >> perchance? > > 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 unchanged or do I copy them > over as well?) including "this is a translation of committish ...", but > change the \version string? > > Basically, do I simulate having applied a remarkably clever convert-ly > rule?
I decided that this probably makes the most sense. I apologize for the stupidity of totally overlooking that without covering the translations this can't possibly work. I will be committing translations with fixed code in the next hour or so to staging. My testing setup is not capable of providing feedback for them in a timely manner; James has offered to do that for me. I hope to rectify this ASAP and get staging back into orderly state. Sorry again. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel