James <p...@gnu.org> writes: > On 31/05/16 13:56, James wrote: >> >> >> On 31/05/16 13:37, David Kastrup wrote: >>> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: >>> >>>> Patchy-staging running now. >>>>> https://codereview.appspot.com/297420043/ >>> Well, hooray! master has been pushed. Now let's see whether this helps >>> James in any respect (if there is still a Ghostscript problem, it likely >>> won't, but otherwise it might). >> >> I am running a merge now - it doesn't matter that someone else >> already has done it (Patchy just replies that staging has already >> been pushed by 'someone else'; I do appreciate those devs that >> worked on Patchy) - >> so if that works, I'll know in about 20 mins from now. >> >> Then I'll see if I can test a patch - although I fear we may get >> failures that have more to do with needing to rebase with current >> master ;) >> >> I'll let you all know. > OK that all worked and I was technically able to push. > > \o/ > > Although I hadn't noticed that I had the default values of j3 and it > took nearly an hour to compile the doc =80 (no wonder people hate > doing it, I had forgotten what it was like in the olden days when I > used to do doc work on my 2 CPU iMac running LilyDev in a VM).
That sounds like Lilydev and 32bit. I'd be interested to know whether 64bit has improved. > Thanks for the work to all concerned. The frustrating thing is that the commit that broke things was just reorganizing some stuff, and the commit that possibly made things work again was further reorganizing and there is no sane reason for either to have made a difference. But I hope this buys me time for figuring out the insane reasons. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
