Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Julien,
2012/1/22 Julien Rioux jri...@physics.utoronto.ca:
Hi Janek,
The autoCompile.patch part is defined here:
https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/patches/compile_lilypond_test.py#L140
You'll see that the code uses
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:17PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time. I
actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree
anyway instead of removing it and doing the next test from a freshly
created
git clone
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:17PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time. I
actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree
anyway instead of removing it and doing
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:17PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time. I
actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree
On 22/01/2012 2:50 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 08:43:26PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
One quick question: Patchy checks patches one at a time, doesn't it?
I.e. applies a patch (doesn't commit), tests, unapplies and moves to
another patch?
...
why are you asking this
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:33:28PM -0500, Julien Rioux wrote:
On 22/01/2012 2:50 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
try:
autoCompile.configure()
autoCompile.patch(patch_filename)
autoCompile.build(quick_make=True,
issue_id=issue_id)
On 24/01/2012 6:35 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I think the pairing
git apply --index filename.patch
git reset --hard
has less potential to go wrong if there is a problem at any time. I
actually don't really understand why we bother with restoring the tree
anyway instead of removing it and doing
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:35:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
So please accept my apologies that I can't defend this patch further
today. It does not mean that I am not serious about it, and I
definitely believe that if Graham double-checks the comments on this
patch, he'll find the reason
On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
(I don't want to put Mike on the spot, but a week ago I sent
him this same email and he fixed the relevant problem in Patchy,
so he might be willing to modify Patchy for this)
See spot run! Run spot run!
I have compositions coming out
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:35:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
So please accept my apologies that I can't defend this patch further
today. It does not mean that I am not serious about it, and I
definitely believe that if Graham double-checks
Hi,
2012/1/22 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
With respect to this patch, you have 4 options:
- modify Patchy to do the appropriate build stuff.
- recruit somebody else to modify Patchy for you.
[...]
[Patchy's automated testing got confused
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:58:09PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
In an old e-mail i've found a link to what looks like Patchy source code
https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/patches/compile_lilypond_test.py
Correct.
and i'm preparing a patch addressing David's advice, but i
2012/1/22 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:58:09PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
i'm preparing a patch addressing David's advice, but i haven't
found how patches for Patchy are announced, reviewed and pushed. Do i
need to create a github account?
Ideally
One quick question: Patchy checks patches one at a time, doesn't it?
I.e. applies a patch (doesn't commit), tests, unapplies and moves to
another patch?
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 08:16:59PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
2012/1/22 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
Ideally you'd create a github account
Done:
janek-warchol
and then I can let you push directly.
No review? I hope i won't screw anything up.
ok, you have push ability
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 08:43:26PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
One quick question: Patchy checks patches one at a time, doesn't it?
I.e. applies a patch (doesn't commit), tests, unapplies and moves to
another patch?
...
why are you asking this question? Is the source code really
*that* hard
2012/1/22 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
why are you asking this question? Is the source code really
*that* hard to read? It's 18 lines!
Hey, i'm not a pro programmer. There are so many brilliant
programmers here that my self-confidence is quite low; this is second
time i read
On 22/01/2012 3:00 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
2012/1/22 Graham Percivalgra...@percival-music.ca:
why are you asking this question? Is the source code really
*that* hard to read? It's 18 lines!
Hey, i'm not a pro programmer. There are so many brilliant
programmers here that my self-confidence
Hi Julien,
2012/1/22 Julien Rioux jri...@physics.utoronto.ca:
Hi Janek,
The autoCompile.patch part is defined here:
https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/patches/compile_lilypond_test.py#L140
You'll see that the code uses
git apply filename.patch
and
git apply --reverse
Hi,
i don't see a way to create a patch file using github, so i've send
Graham a pull request and i hope it will be ok.
The changes i suggest can be seen here:
https://github.com/janek-warchol/lilypond-extra/commit/301c42579299d62fb24af4fa0ea950b158649da3
Graham, if you don't want to bother about
2012/1/22 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
suggested changes for Patchy, which should help dealing with untracked files
like in issue 2240, are here:
https://github.com/janek-warchol/lilypond-extra/commit/301c42579299d62fb24af4fa0ea950b158649da3
This patch fails, Patchy exits with
21 matches
Mail list logo
