[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patchy email
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Patchy email |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:45:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>> *** FAILED BUILD ***
>>
>> nice make doc -j3 CPU_COUNT=3
>>
>> Previous good commit: 8019ff784cd3aa6cc43b8eb8f29a621bc5800f5c
>>
>> Current broken commit: f1b7a60cdb4c2f1d41329a1b3a6a01f4306f6467
>
> That would be the 2240 work. I did a full make check and a build of the
> info documentation which in my experience is pretty much the same as a
> make doc but somewhat faster. Seems that the similarity does not go
> deep enough. My guess is that translations may not be covered.
>
> Apologies.
>
> I'll be fixing this, but it will take several hours to make a doc build
> on my current setup. Do you have the log files for the failed runs,
> perchance?
Sorry again for the problem, but I am actually at a loss what to do if
my guess about the translations is correct: do I copy over the relevant
@lilypond passages and keep everything else the same (namely unupdated,
and do I leave the @example code passages unchanged or do I copy them
over as well?) including "this is a translation of committish ...", but
change the \version string?
Basically, do I simulate having applied a remarkably clever convert-ly
rule?
--
David Kastrup
Patchy email, lilypond . patchy . graham, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, Graham Percival, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, Graham Percival, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25
Re: Patchy email, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25