2011/5/2 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
git clone seems to suffer from the same (or a similar) problem:
I'm seeing about 40% success rate with git clone --depth 1.
Granted, that's better than the 10-20% success rate of git fetch,
but at the moment I think that apparent difference is
Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
If master is now 2.15, what's the official mechanism planned for
incorporate latest translations to the upcoming 2.12 stable?
Thanks.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
- Original Message -
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu; Lily devel
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Backporting / stable
Carl Sorensen wrote Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:59 PM
So it appears that the
2011/5/3 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
If master is now 2.15, what's the official mechanism planned for
incorporate latest translations to the upcoming 2.12
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:52:01AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Slightly related to this - if a bug is marked fixed 2.15.0 backport,
should it also have a 2.13 version number for the claim fix?
No.
(well, Carl will add a 2.13 version number -- but that is
something that Carl, and only Carl,
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:03:15AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
2011/5/2 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
git clone seems to suffer from the same (or a similar) problem:
I'm seeing about 40% success rate with git clone --depth 1.
Regarding to connectivity, when I am at home, all
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:45:09PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
2011/5/3 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
If master is now 2.15, what's the official mechanism
http://codereview.appspot.com/4445070/diff/5/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4445070/diff/5/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi#newcode325
Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi:325:
2011/5/3 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:45:09PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
2011/5/3 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
If
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: philehol...@googlemail.com; percival.music...@gmail.com;
lilypond-devel@gnu.org; re...@codereview.appspotmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Fix error
Hello (be gentle),
I have just pushed a change to the CG but forgot to commit some additional
changes so they didn't get pushed.
So the CG won't compile now.
I know how to fix this, but when I have tried to push these additional fixes I
get the following message
---
! [rejected]
On 5/3/11 5:45 AM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote:
2011/5/3 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
If master is now 2.15, what's the official mechanism
Hello
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of James
Lowe [james.l...@datacore.com]
Sent: 03 May 2011 16:57
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Problem with pushing
James Lowe James.Lowe at datacore.com writes:
I have just pushed a change to the CG but forgot to commit some additional
changes so they didn't get pushed.
So the CG won't compile now.
My guess is that you collected the changes into an 'amended' commit,
which would replace the first
Keith,
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of Keith
OHara [k-ohara5...@oco.net]
Sent: 03 May 2011 19:34
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Problem with
On 2011/05/03 03:56:15, MikeSol wrote:
A better approach to the TabVoice glissando problem, although I'm
still not
quite sure why it works, but it seems to work!
The default procedure for noteToFretFunctionm, `determine-frets',
returns a reversed list, so the following change to the helper
On May 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/03 03:56:15, MikeSol wrote:
A better approach to the TabVoice glissando problem, although I'm
still not
quite sure why it works, but it seems to work!
The default procedure for noteToFretFunctionm, `determine-frets',
On 2011/05/03 21:14:02, Neil Puttock wrote:
(reverse string-fret-fingering-tuples)) ;; end of
determine-frets-and-strings
Hmm, this messes up ordering of harmonics, though they're already broken
judging by the following:
\version 2.15.0
music = \relative c' {
dis\2\glissando e\2\harmonic
On 3 May 2011 23:27, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/03 03:56:15, MikeSol wrote:
A better approach to the TabVoice glissando problem, although I'm
still not
quite sure why it works, but it seems to work!
On May 3, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 3 May 2011 23:27, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/03 03:56:15, MikeSol wrote:
A better approach to the TabVoice glissando problem, although I'm
still not
On May 3, 2011, at 3:39 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 3 May 2011 23:27, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/03 03:56:15, MikeSol wrote:
A better approach
21 matches
Mail list logo
