[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 1622 in lilypond: Dynamic spanner not printed within gracenote
Re: Issue 1622 in lilypond: Dynamic spanner not printed within gracenotes
Wed, 04 May 2011 07:06:43 -0600
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
On 11-05-04 02:29 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Colin Campbell wrote Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:08 AM
On 11-05-03 01:01 PM, Keith OHara wrote:
<lilypond<at> googlecode.com> writes:
Comment #6 on issue 1622 by address@hidden: Dynamic spanner not
printed within grace notes
But 2.15.0 has not been released yet, Colin.
Another change between now and the release might destroy the fix
(which has happened when a fix caused a worse problem an had to be
or the fix might not appear in the released build for which it was
(which has also happened recently).
I am rubbish at understanding policy documents (and following
in general) but I think the CG intends that we test only the
when it says 'official GUB version'.
Actually, 2.15.0 _is_ the version reported by the gub I built
address@hidden:~$ which lilypond
address@hidden:~$ lilypond -v
GNU LilyPond 2.15.0
Keith was quite right. The point is that you should
test only the official releases built by Graham, and
he has not made a 2.15.0 release. You should
never update the bug database by testing a locally
built release as the point in git history when it was
built is not defined, and will definitely be different
from the state of git when/if 2.15.0 is officially
BTW, GUB is an acronym for Grand Unified Builder - the
name of the cross-platform building mechanism that
Graham uses to generate all the various binaries in
an official release. Hence a GUB binary is a binary
version of LilyPond built by this mechanism.
My goodness! I thought I was having too much fun yesterday! I had
mis-interpreted something Graham said as meaning I should verify with
the latest GUB build, unaware that he meant " . . . downloaded from the
website". Ah well, good intentions make good paving material.
FWIW, I'll be glad when we get a bit further down the road from this
pre-release version multiplicity. IIUC, the status is this:
2.12.3 is the official, accept no substitutes, publically supported
2.13.61 is the official, accept no substitutes, publically supported
unstable version, to be used in verifying fixes
2.15.0 is the official developers (and well-meaning amateurs) unstable
version in git, also buildable locally with GUB
2.14.0 is to all intents and purposes invisible, except to Carl
Issues labelled "Fixed 2.13.62" or greater version number are
Issues labelled "Fixed 2.15.0 Backport" are ambiguous: is the backport
to 2.13.62 only?
Colin "confused but willing" Campbell
2.13.61 is the official
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who
have too little.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
Message not available