Re: biweekly Critical issues plea

[address@hidden]

Graham et all,

I have read all of the postings and am up to date - I meant "what next" as a 
general question to the community in the sense of "would anyone who was 
actually involved in the pushing of this commit (Joe - I see your name 
associated with it - how much work did you do on it?) like to give me some 
guidance as to where to go so that I can find that which ultimately causes this 
regression?"  In terms of man hours, I think that a little time invested by the 
people who were involved in producing the commit would be more efficient than 
my learning how lilypond functioned back when this was pushed.  That said, if 
the response is "I have no clue," then I will get to figuring it out.

Cheers,
MS

On Jan 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 04:31:47PM -0500, address@hidden wrote:
>> result of git bisect for issue 1472
>> 
>> ee0488f3aa19e0060b6e17c46a4d88cb9d57c489 is the first bad commit
>>    Fix 1120.
>> 
>> What next?
> 
> Umm.  Next you read the emails on lilypond-devel which have been
> discussing this for the past few days.  I know that I've seen
> somebody talking about reverting the 1120 fix, either earlier
> today, or yesterday.
> 
> Remember, I told you that getting up-to-date was your job.  I
> honestly didn't know that the revert-1120-fix discussion was about
> issue 1472, but I'm not surprised.  The whole point of the
> "shepherd" idea was to avoid duplicating work like this!
> (yes, it was useful for you to learn about git bisect, but that's
> it)
> 
> Cheers,
> - Graham