----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kastrup" <[email protected]>
To: "James Lowe" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: PDF is broken for @notation{} encoding
James Lowe <[email protected]> writes:
On 26/05/15 08:35, David Kastrup wrote:
James Lowe <[email protected]> writes:
On 25/05/15 16:08, Phil Holmes wrote:
I can try again, but it was consistent. James might want to try?
If it helps.
I get the same thing too.
How much effort is it to do one iteration on one affected file? I have
absolutely no clue how this may come about so if one could figure out
_which_ of the added defines is responsible, it might help boiling this
down. One can probably do some sort of manual bisection on the added
commands but it would still require something like 7 runs.
I don't really have any experience with 'bisections' so if you can give
me some relatively simple instructions, I don't mind doing the gruntwork
building doc over and over.
I'm still flabbergasted at the supposed faulty commit. Here is one
theory I'd consider more plausible:
commit 5eca56fae0faa2db9cf7f12903e1a06c42b2af0d
Author: Walter Garcia-Fontes <[email protected]>
Date: Sat Feb 7 20:00:15 2015 +0100
Doc-ca: texinfo.tex and txi-ca from upstream to fix problem with
Catalan interpunct
This commit contains the following diff in tex/texinfo.tex:
@@ -8821,6 +8949,7 @@ directory should work if nowhere else does.}
\catcode\count255=#1\relax
\advance\count255 by 1
\repeat
+
}
This diff introduced a spurious empty line resulting in \par into the
command \setnonasciicharscatcodenonglobal which may be used in several
different situations, possibly reading indexes and/or macros.
This would _totally_ believably match the reported symptoms (and likely
warrants fixing). But it is definitely a different commit than
reported.
--
David Kastrup
I may be getting confused over the order of commits. If I look at the
Savannah web page
(http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/log/?ofs=100), I see Werner's
commit stem-tremolo-style.ly: Minor doc improvement
e1081454de4c8167f3f010912de061822226f61d immediately before the update
texinfo.tex from upstream commit: so I have been checking out the tremolo
commit and then the texinfo commit, and the former gives no errors and the
latter gives the extra line feeds. However, if I look at the git history
with gitk, it appears that the texinfo commit occurred just after 2.19.17
and the tremolo commit just after 2.19.19. So it looks like savannah's
order and the actual git history are not identical.
Could you tell me how to be sure what order the commits occurred in, please?
FWIW I started with git bisect but found problems with builds failing, so
resorted to a home-grown style of bisecting - hence needing to establish the
order of commits.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
