Hello, On 19 December 2012 20:21, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > James <[email protected]> writes: > >> You don't need to explain Jean-Charles, I was just making very >> uneducated observations/guesses. >> >> Anyway, regardless of this we had all agreed to not push anything >> directly to master. > > Apparently he didn't. > >> Just another uneducated guess based on a simple fact that everything >> had merged fine until that checkin of yours. Then it failed. > > Actually, it was a commit of mine on top of that. > >> But I don't need anyone to explain it to me, I am sure David et al >> have more pressing matters :) >> >> My job is just to test and merge and shout when something bad happens. >> I try to guess from the logs but sometimes it is hard for me. > > In this case, the fault was mine. Or at least it was caused by a commit > of mine that saw its first full doc build in staging (while having > passed through normal patchy testing fine). The commit was intended to > flag errors, and, uh, it flagged errors in the docs. So it was perhaps > a bit too optimistic to push to staging without full doc tests.
Well merge does a full doc build and your checkin was in master already so must have made it through the make doc in that case. That was what was so odd. Anyway, i can enable a full make doc on every test patchy - it isn't that huge a deal. I've set on for now and I'll see if it affects the amount of testing I can get done compared to what I do now. James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
