On 2013/09/29 05:46:39, dak wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/14040043/diff/6001/scripts/convert-ly.py
The name here was chosen to correspond with the numbered backups of
Emacs.
Emacs will recognize a numbered backup file (joining the backup
scheme) only
when there is a good match. In
2013/9/29 Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com
2013/9/28 Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com
2013/9/28 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
I believe lilypad for Windows is localised - see
The issue tracker shows for
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1q=status%3Afixed
48 unverified issues. Most of them can be verified since 2.17.27 has
been released. Some have Fixed_2_17_28 in spite of already being in
2.17.27.
I'd like a better record before branching the
These both need a bit of study to work out how to fix them. Can you raise an
issue for them, please?
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: Federico Bruni
To: Phil Holmes
Cc: Graham Percival ; David Kastrup ; lilypond-devel
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:57 AM
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:15 PM
Subject: Unverified issues?
The issue tracker shows for
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1q=status%3Afixed
48 unverified issues. Most of
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3586
2013/9/29 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
**
These both need a bit of study to work out how to fix them. Can you raise
an issue for them, please?
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
*From:* Federico Bruni
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:15 PM
Subject: Unverified issues?
The issue tracker shows for
dak wrote
Phil Holmes lt;
mail@
gt; writes:
The issue tracker shows for
lt;URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1amp;q=status%3Afixedgt;
48 unverified issues. Most of them can be verified since 2.17.27 has
been released. Some have Fixed_2_17_28 in spite of already
- Original Message -
From: Eluze elu...@gmail.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Unverified issues?
dak wrote
Phil Holmes lt;
mail@
gt; writes:
The issue tracker shows for
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
From: Eluze elu...@gmail.com
I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member
allowed to do it!)
But you seem the most efficient at this :-)
So what? If you find that some worker in a factory line is more
efficient as the next
2013/9/29 Eluze elu...@gmail.com
Traditionally Eluze works through these on a Monday. Let's check the
situation on Tuesday.
Ah, ok.
I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member
allowed
to do it!)
I've cleared some of them, you won't have to work too much
Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com writes:
2013/9/29 Eluze elu...@gmail.com
Traditionally Eluze works through these on a Monday. Let's check the
situation on Tuesday.
Ah, ok.
I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member
allowed
to do it!)
I've cleared some
2013/9/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
It matches the theory. In practice, I've been startled quite a few
times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present
but also reported back when it turned out that the claimed functionality
did not actually accompany the commit.
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com
Cc: Eluze elu...@gmail.com; lilypond-devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: verification and bulk edit [Re: Unverified issues?]
Federico Bruni
Federico Bruni-5 wrote
2013/9/29 David Kastrup lt;
dak@
gt;
It matches the theory. In practice, I've been startled quite a few
times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present
but also reported back when it turned out that the claimed functionality
did not
Phil Holmes-2 wrote
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup lt;
dak@
gt;
To: Federico Bruni lt;
fedelogy@
gt;
Cc: Eluze lt;
eluzew@
gt;; lilypond-devel lt;
lilypond-devel@
gt;
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: verification and bulk edit [Re:
Eluze wrote
a final remark: in the beginning of my bug squad member career it took me
much longer to verify a single issue - now with some routine I can open an
issue, search the commit, copy it, swap to Phil's tab, paste, check there
is something there, swap back, select verified and submit
2013/9/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
From: Eluze elu...@gmail.com
I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member
allowed to do it!)
But you seem the most efficient at this :-)
So what? If you find that some worker in a
Am 29.09.2013 23:45, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
2013/9/29 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
From: Eluze elu...@gmail.com
I will treat what's left tomorrow (I'm not the only bug squad member
allowed to do it!)
But you seem the most efficient at this :-)
So
Hi,
for some testings I tried to compile 2.17.27 from the tarball to be found at:
http://lilypond.org/website/development.html
on Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Without success. The terminal-output points me to
contributor.makeinfo.log
This file contains:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:26:13AM +0200, Eluze wrote:
but weeks ago I already told how unfair this system is: Phil's
releases happen on week-ends usually and then it's my turn - the
others rarely get the opportunity to get accustomed to verifying.
Well, if everybody strictly does no more
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:49:07PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
It matches the theory. In practice, I've been startled quite a few
times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present
but also reported back when it
22 matches
Mail list logo
