[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:39:53 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Antonio Ospite <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:07:08 +0100
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Antonio Ospite <address@hidden> writes:
>>> > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005
>>> > [1] actually makes sense I would propose it for inclusion in lilypond.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >    Antonio
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> >
>>> [Forehead-slap] Looks like the right thing to do but it seems like
>>> moving it the scm_dynwind_end call before anything else is done might be
>>> better since non_fatal_error might cause a fatal error (depending on
>>> command line options) and I am not completely sure that a non-local C++
>>> exit will properly count as a non-local Scheme exit according to
>>> scm_dynwind_end's documentation.
>>> It's a non-brainer so I might just push a fix without further notice if
>>> it's ok with you that I'm stealing your credit in that manner.  If it's
>>> not ok, I'll get your patch and commit message and do that change with
>>> you as author.
>> Sure, if your change is different and better than mine, go a head and
>> take credit, maybe mention my name in the commit message, with something
>> like a Thanks-to or a Reported-by tag, but it's not a big deal.
> Turns out that the commit message is a lot more work than the patch so
> I'll just keep yours around.
>> After this was fixed I noticed that I was getting the warnings in a
>> different order compared to what was
>> expecting, see patch 0006[1]. I am not sure if this happens with
>> guile-1.8 too, so if you got the chance take a look at that too,
>> please.
> I get the same warning here.  It's due to the previous warning's lack of
> proper cleanup: if you remove the first expect-warning and its trigger,
> this will also occur with current LilyPond.
> So I better change this in the same patch.

Pushed this to staging.  I have to apologize to the bug team for
bypassing procedures a lot these days, but this one is simple and I
can't really wait a lot for a drain of the pipeline if I want to get a
few things in shape before leaving.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]