Re: retrograding with convert-ly

[-Eluze]

dak-3 wrote:
> 
> Colin Hall <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 05:52:09AM -0700, Eluze wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just applied convert-ly to a file which contained \version
>>> "2.15.41" - now the version is "2.15.40"!
>>
>> Thanks for the report, Eluze.
>>
>> Did you run the version of convert-ly released with Lilypond 2.15.41?
> 
> If it has upgraded to "2.15.40", it could not have been all that old.
> 
>> This sounds like a concrete bug to me. Is that also your opinion?
>>
>> Please confirm whether you expect a bug report to be created in
>> response to this, or not.
> 
> Would need a concrete example/evidence, I think.  Running current
> convert-ly -ed on a file just containing the line
> 
> \version "2.15.41"
> 
> does not cause any change here.  Neither does running it with a line
> containing
> 
> \version "2.15.45"
> 
> (just to be sure to be in the future with respect to convert-ly).
> 
> 
> 


here's a snapshot of what I get running the command in the command line (the
file contains only \version "2.15.1":

>convert-ly test.ly
convert-ly.py (GNU LilyPond) 2.15.41

convert-ly.py: Processing `test.ly'...
Applying conversion: 2.15.7, 2.15.9, 2.15.10, 2.15.16, 2.15.17, 2.15.18,
2.15.19, 2.15.20, 2.15.25, 2.15.32, 2.15.39, 2.15.40


\version "2.15.40"

>


when the file contains \version "2.15.41" I get:


>convert-ly test.ly
convert-ly.py (GNU LilyPond) 2.15.41

convert-ly.py: Processing `test.ly'...
Applying conversion:

\version "2.15.40"

>

the same with a file containing "2.15.51" or "2.16.51" 

this is under windows 7
the file convert-ly.py dates from 12/07/05 05:05

running it with the option -d works as expected.
running it with the option -c produces correctly 2.15.41

if somebody can confirm this behavior I think we should open an issue.

thanks
Eluze


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/retrograding-with-convert-ly-tp34160943p34163255.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.