On 2014/10/11 18:52:57, dak wrote:
What I usually do is to have my branches associated with an
upstream branch.
git branch -b issuexxx origin
branch is a thinko for checkout right?
I have no idea whether one of the two is definitely involved. But
keeping the
same branch around is
On 2014/10/18 16:38:14, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2014/10/11 18:52:57, dak wrote:
What I usually do is to have my branches associated with an
upstream branch.
git branch -b issuexxx origin
branch is a thinko for checkout right?
Uh, yes.
Sorry.
https://codereview.appspot.com/152370043/
On 2014/10/09 05:13:48, dak wrote:
Incidentally, do you use git cl
for uploading? Your reviews are remarkable in that they do not allow
comparing/viewing the various versions of your uploads. That should
not usually happen so it would be interesting to know what causes this
situation.
I have
On 2014/10/11 17:53:13, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2014/10/09 05:13:48, dak wrote:
Incidentally, do you use git cl
for uploading? Your reviews are remarkable in that they do not
allow
comparing/viewing the various versions of your uploads. That should
not usually happen so it would be
Neither the Google issue nor the Rietveld review contain any rationale
for that change. It complicates the source without _any_ difference in
execution as far as I can see.
One side change is to remove copy constructors with an assert(false).
Personally, I am annoyed at C++ not allowing to
On 2014/10/08 08:42:55, dak wrote:
It complicates the source without _any_ difference in execution as far
as I can see.
The goal of this change is robustness and maintainability. From my
perspective, the new version raises fewer questions.
One side change is to remove copy constructors with
On 2014/10/08 13:17:39, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2014/10/08 08:42:55, dak wrote:
It complicates the source without _any_ difference in execution as
far
as I can see.
The goal of this change is robustness and maintainability. From my
perspective,
the new version raises fewer questions.
You
On 2014/10/08 13:54:07, dak wrote:
Not defined is quite definitely not a statement of intent. Nor is
it of
purpose. It is of fact. And it is quite confusing since it is
immediately
adjacent to a declaration.
It's more like
// declared, do not define! Prevents default copy constructor.
On 2014/10/08 23:48:16, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2014/10/08 13:54:07, dak wrote:
Not defined is quite definitely not a statement of intent. Nor is
it of
purpose. It is of fact. And it is quite confusing since it is
immediately
adjacent to a declaration.
It's more like
// declared, do not
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Define Smob constructors.
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4156
Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/152370043/
Affected files (+53, -26 lines):
M lily/book.cc
M lily/context.cc
M lily/context-def.cc
M lily/font-metric.cc
M
Note that I haven't searched for kinds of derived Smob that are still
getting compiler-generated constructors. My approach was to clean up
SmobT and fix resulting warnings. The rest shouldn't be any worse off
now than they were before.
https://codereview.appspot.com/152370043/
LGTM, from visual inspection only :-)
https://codereview.appspot.com/152370043/diff/1/lily/include/book.hh
File lily/include/book.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/152370043/diff/1/lily/include/book.hh#newcode31
lily/include/book.hh:31: typedef SmobBook base_type;
I would insert an
12 matches
Mail list logo
