Re: Patchy email

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:29:51PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If it wasn't a build from scratch, it doesn't count.
>
>> 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?
>
> this fails:
>
> \sourcefileline 99
> tonic=fis'
> { <\tonic \transpose c g \tonic> }
>
> I tried it manually:
>
> foo.ly:101:10: error: not a rhythmic event
> { <\tonic 
>           \transpose c g \tonic> }

WTF?  That's definitely something in the changes file.  I checked this
and it compiled and I had code that made sure it compiled.  With all the
rebasing to make this fit better I must have displaced the relevant
commit that explicitly makes this compile somehow after all.  I'll be
pushing that ASAP and check the translations afterwards.

-- 
David Kastrup