Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
Le mardi 14 juillet 2009 à 16:21 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit : Hmm -- I read through the CG and missed it. Now that I know what I'm looking for, I see where it is. I'll add something to the CG. Thanks. The general problem when I write instructions in the CG (besides the fact that I still haven't updated it enough) is that I have in mind the design of the translation infrastructure, that AFAIK is only known by Jan, me, and probably a little by Han-Wen and Reinhold. The more I think about it, the more I find I should write a short paper and/or CG section that explains the general design of the docs translations integration, so we can avoid formalizing too many procedure details related to translations into the CG. But if I've changed syntax, and the translated manuals will no longer work properly, then I break compilation if I push a patch. So in the case of a syntax change that needs a NOT_SMART convert-ly rule, we should have some procedure in place to avoid future occurences of this problem, it seems to me. The procedure that used to be applied by Jan, Han-Wen and other contributors was to apply syntax changes in snippets (@lilypond/@lilypondfile) to all languages without asking anything, or (I can't remember whether they have already done so) commenting out or remove broken snippets in translations. The former is the most sensible thing to do IMHO. Best, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
Le jeudi 16 juillet 2009 à 09:12 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit : I tried running make ISOLANG=fr snippet-update from Documentation/. It ran, but most of the files were not able to be updated because they had a different snippet count. So at the present time, make snippet-update is not particularly useful in terms of updating snippets; the work will need to be done largely by hand. Indeed. If we had a Texinfo parser usable as a module (and I hope we'll have one soon), it would be easy to change this script so it would try to update snippets node by node. So, just to make sure I'm clear on this, I'd like to propose the following for addition to the CG: When a snippet is changed or deleted from the english documentation, the same change (or deletion) should be applied to all translated versions of the documentation. However, when text is changed, added, or removed from the english documentation, no changes should be made to the translated versions of the documentation. Is this correct? I'd complete the last sentence with besides removing snippets that break compilation of the documentation; besides this, this LGTM. Thanks, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/16/09 9:31 AM, John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com wrote: So, just to make sure I'm clear on this, I'd like to propose the following for addition to the CG: When a snippet is changed or deleted from the english documentation, the same change (or deletion) should be applied to all translated versions of the documentation. However, when text is changed, added, or removed from the english documentation, no changes should be made to the translated versions of the documentation. Is this correct? I'd complete the last sentence with besides removing snippets that break compilation of the documentation; besides this, this LGTM. How about: However, when non-snippet text is changed, added, or removed from the english documentation, no corresponding changes should be made to the translated versions of the documentation. I intended to have the snippet part be covered by the first paragraph. Thanks, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
Le jeudi 16 juillet 2009 à 09:40 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit : However, when non-snippet text is changed, added, or removed from the english documentation, no corresponding changes should be made to the translated versions of the documentation. All right, this is clearer. Cheers, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/10/09 3:37 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
I'm trying to finish up the revisions to the autobeaming code.
I've got it working just fine when I compile from the command line.
But when snippets are included in the docs, they seem to compile different
than from the command line.
I'll take a snippet that's in the docs (not one that's included as a file),
copy it to a .ly file, wrap it in \relative c''{}, and everything works
fine.
But when I compile the docs with make doc, the snippet doesn't work.
Is there a different version of LilyPond called when make doc is running? I
can't figure out what the story is. Any clues would be appreciated.
I finally discovered what was going on. The snippet was being replaced with
the version from one of the translated documents. I actually fought with
this last December, and Neil gave me this answer:
On 12/15/08 1:49 PM, Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carl,
The make web choked on trying to run a lilypond snippet. I looked at the
snippet, and the reason that lilypond choked was because the snippet was the
*old* version of the snippet, not the new version of the snippet. So the
last lines of the make web output aren't likely to be helpful. If there are
helpful lines in the output, they would be likely to show up somewhere
above, where snippets are extracted from the .itely files.
The old snippets were in the translations; running update-snippets.py
copied the syntax changes over from user.
Thanks, Neil. I suspected that they were in the translations, but I had no
idea how to get them over.
Carl
Neil,
Can we get something in the CG about this problem, and how to run
update-snippets.py to fix things, or at least a statement about the easiest
way to solve the problem?
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
2009/7/14 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: Can we get something in the CG about this problem, and how to run update-snippets.py to fix things, or at least a statement about the easiest way to solve the problem? It's already mentioned in CG (in passing), but I got the impression when I stumbled across it for the compile fix in December that it's mainly for use by translators. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/14/09 4:11 PM, Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/14 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: Can we get something in the CG about this problem, and how to run update-snippets.py to fix things, or at least a statement about the easiest way to solve the problem? It's already mentioned in CG (in passing), but I got the impression when I stumbled across it for the compile fix in December that it's mainly for use by translators. Hmm -- I read through the CG and missed it. Now that I know what I'm looking for, I see where it is. I'll add something to the CG. I think that somehow we need to get it to be used by others besides tranlators. I need to use it because I can't push a patch until I verify make doc works. I could just verify that make doc works properly in a subdirectory (e.g. Documentation/user), and then I know that the new english manuals work properly. But if I've changed syntax, and the translated manuals will no longer work properly, then I break compilation if I push a patch. So in the case of a syntax change that needs a NOT_SMART convert-ly rule, we should have some procedure in place to avoid future occurences of this problem, it seems to me. I'm not sure exactly what is the best method of doing this, however. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/10/09 6:38 PM, John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/11 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: Similiar stuff has happened to me, but since it involves the build process, I never bothered trying to track down the problem. I just do a make clean, make web-clean (that's probably doc-clean now), and regenerate everything. You could _try_ touching rhythms.itely, in case the build system looks at dates... or try modifying the example, in case the build system takes a hash of examples or something. Like, add a s4 somewhere? It's no problem if you don't know about the build system, but I want an exact description of the problem, i.e. a well-formed bug report, otherwise I can help with only more difficultly. I did make doc-clean again. When I did make doc after that, I found that there was a snippet causing a segmentation fault. I suspect that this was at the root of my problem. I'm sorry, but I didn't do the investigation that would be needed for a proper bug report. I just consider it a PEBCAK or a PICNIC. Thanks for all your help. It got me where I needed to be -- focusing on the problems in my new code. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:37:36PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: Is there a different version of LilyPond called when make doc is running? I can't figure out what the story is. Any clues would be appreciated. There's different formatting options. - you can see (probably) the right options in CG 3.3.4 LilyPond formatting - you can see the exact \paper options by looking at the out/lybook-db/xy/lily-sadncg7i4f34.ly Omit the first few lines when you run this manually; just take everything below the copy below this line thing. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
2009/7/10 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu:
I'll take a snippet that's in the docs (not one that's included as a file),
copy it to a .ly file, wrap it in \relative c''{}, and everything works
fine.
But when I compile the docs with make doc, the snippet doesn't work.
Can you explain in more detail how it doesn't work? Does it break
compilation, or just change more subtly?
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/10/09 3:58 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 7/10/09 3:43 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:37:36PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Is there a different version of LilyPond called when make doc is running? I
can't figure out what the story is. Any clues would be appreciated.
There's different formatting options.
It's not the different fomratting options that I'm wondering about.
Let me give you an example of what I mean.
The following snippet is in rhythms.itely:
When multiple voices are used the @code{Staff} context must be
specified if the beaming is to be applied to all voices in the
staff:
@lilypond[quote,verbatim,relative=2]
\time 7/8
% rhythm 3-1-1-2
% Context not specified - does not work correctly
% Because of autogenerated voices, all beating will
% be at beatLength (1 . 8)
\overrideBeamSettings #'Voice #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
% Works correctly with context specified
\overrideBeamSettings #'Staff #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
@end lilypond
Ahh -- there is a clue here that I hadn't noticed before. The comments in
the code are different in the snippet from rhythms.itely and the doc
output.
That means that the snippet in rhythms.itely is *not* the one that is being
compiled for the docs.
So now the question is -- why would the current snippet not be compiled?
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: When run from the command line, the output that results is attached as FromCommandLine.png. Are you running lilypond foo.ly ? That will call the lilypond from your PATH, which is probably a GUB version. Alternatively, if you use the makedocs script (building the docs without compiling lilypond), then *that* will probably use a GUB version. The most likely explanation is that one (or both) of the lilypond binaries that get called isn't the one in out/bin/lilypnod. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/10/09 4:13 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:58:29PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: When run from the command line, the output that results is attached as FromCommandLine.png. Are you running lilypond foo.ly ? That will call the lilypond from your PATH, which is probably a GUB version. Alternatively, if you use the makedocs script (building the docs without compiling lilypond), then *that* will probably use a GUB version. sorensen2:lilypond-working Carl$ which lilypond /Users/Carl/lilypond-working/out/bin/lilypond I'm using the standard lilypond build stuff, and I've recompiled LilyPond just in case. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: Ahh -- there is a clue here that I hadn't noticed before. The comments in the code are different in the snippet from rhythms.itely and the doc output. That means that the snippet in rhythms.itely is *not* the one that is being compiled for the docs. What are the exact differences? Cheers, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
On 7/10/09 4:58 PM, John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu:
Ahh -- there is a clue here that I hadn't noticed before. The comments in
the code are different in the snippet from rhythms.itely and the doc
output.
That means that the snippet in rhythms.itely is *not* the one that is being
compiled for the docs.
What are the exact differences?
The difference is two lines of comments. The one that is showing up in the
docs is an older version than the one that is currently in rhythms.itely.
Please note that the snippet is not an included file, but is actually part
of the text in rhythms.itely. It's as if the snippet database is somehow
not being updated.
I'm not sure how to best show you the exact differences. Let me do my best.
Here is what shows up in the docs:
\time 7/8
% rhythm 3-1-1-2
% Context not specified - does not work correctly
\overrideBeamSettings #'Voice #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
% Works correctly with context specified
\overrideBeamSettings #'Staff #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
Here is what is in rhythms.itely
@lilypond[quote,verbatim,relative=2]
\time 7/8
% rhythm 3-1-1-2
% Context not specified - does not work correctly
% Because of autogenerated voices, all beating will
% be at beatLength (1 . 8)
\overrideBeamSettings #'Voice #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
% Works correctly with context specified
\overrideBeamSettings #'Staff #'(7 . 8) #'end #'((* . (3 1 1 2)))
{a8 a a a16 a a a a8 a} \\ {f4. f8 f f f}
@end lilypond
When I copy either snippet to a .ly file and surround it with
\relative c''{}, it compiles correctly.
But in the docs, it does not. I suspect it's actually not compiling at all,
but just being included from the database somehow. And the LilyPond output
is from a buggy previous version that I was working on. But I don't know
how to track that down.
Thanks for thinking about it.
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
2009/7/11 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: The difference is two lines of comments. The one that is showing up in the docs is an older version than the one that is currently in rhythms.itely. Please note that the snippet is not an included file, but is actually part of the text in rhythms.itely. It's as if the snippet database is somehow not being updated. This is weird. Can you check and tell us the hash of old (by reverting changes) and new versions of this snippet, and check in make output that rhythms.itely is actually scanned by lilypond-book? What happens if you slightly change the comments (adding or removing the wortd)? i.e. does the hash changes? Did you make on a clean source tree or did you update a previsous build? Are you sure you edited the file in the source tree you used to build? Best, John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Snippets in doc compile different from stand-alone
2009/7/11 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: Similiar stuff has happened to me, but since it involves the build process, I never bothered trying to track down the problem. I just do a make clean, make web-clean (that's probably doc-clean now), and regenerate everything. You could _try_ touching rhythms.itely, in case the build system looks at dates... or try modifying the example, in case the build system takes a hash of examples or something. Like, add a s4 somewhere? It's no problem if you don't know about the build system, but I want an exact description of the problem, i.e. a well-formed bug report, otherwise I can help with only more difficultly. John ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
