Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-07 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
> I only posted an amended patch because Graham said he had reverted my > first patch. Here's a patch against master. Applied, pushed, thanks! Jan -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl _

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-07 Thread Valentin Villenave
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Let me think about that.  What I would like is for Valentin > to fix it the way he thinks it's best.  Eg: two patches, one simple > git revert --no-edit and the new patch.  I don't like reverting other > people's patches. I only posted an

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-07 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
reverting is OK since the patch is wrong ad Valentin asks for it, right? Let me think about that. What I would like is for Valentin to fix it the way he thinks it's best. Eg: two patches, one simple git revert --no-edit and the new patch. I don't like reverting other people's patches. Graham P

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-07 Thread Graham Percival
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Valentin Villenave wrote: > Here's a new patch that you can use instead of the previous one. > (Since you've reverted it.) Please let me know how that works! Jan, where are we on this? - do you want to officially git revert Valentin's previous patch, then apply thi

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-04 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 12/4/10 1:32 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Valentin Villenave > wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Graham Percival >> wrote: >>> Since GUB master still cannot build lilypond due to that target_cpu >>> error, I've reverted my local tree back to >>>  

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-04 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Percival writes: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Valentin Villenave > wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Graham Percival >> wrote: >>> Since GUB master still cannot build lilypond due to that target_cpu >>> error, I've reverted my local tree back to >>>    2a8f076a015ac06b37a7f8

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-04 Thread Graham Percival
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Valentin Villenave wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: >> Since GUB master still cannot build lilypond due to that target_cpu >> error, I've reverted my local tree back to >>    2a8f076a015ac06b37a7f86537cf47691e65e745 > > Here's a new

Re: 2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-04 Thread Valentin Villenave
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > Since GUB master still cannot build lilypond due to that target_cpu > error, I've reverted my local tree back to >    2a8f076a015ac06b37a7f86537cf47691e65e745 > which is the commit we used for 2.13.40. Here's a new patch that you can use in

2.13.41 and near future

2010-12-04 Thread Graham Percival
Since GUB master still cannot build lilypond due to that target_cpu error, I've reverted my local tree back to 2a8f076a015ac06b37a7f86537cf47691e65e745 which is the commit we used for 2.13.40. Carl, Neil, and Valentin have made great progress on the volleyball regression bugs. I'm going to bo