Re: 2.16.1

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> If it is ok with people, I'd propose the following course in order to
>>> get the ball rolling again:
>>>
>>> I'll merge stable/2.16 into translation.  That should be unproblematic.
>>> Then I'll merge translation into staging.  This will require a bit of
>>> cleanup and conflict resolution.
>>
>> Ok, I got the merge here done.  The only changes outside of
>> Documentation/xx strictly are now in
>>
>> # modified:
>> Documentation/snippets/how-to-print-two-rehearsal-marks-above-and-below-the-same-barline-method-2.ly
>> #       modified:   po/eo.po
>> #       modified:   po/es.po
>> #       modified:   po/it.po
>>
>> The first has \consists "something" instead of \consists something and
>> is definitely correct.  The history shows the following, making it
>> likely that this change might get backed out again by automatisms.
>
> I'll back this one out of the merge since there is no point in
> reinstating it, then letting it get overwritten again.  This needs to be
> done through Documentation/snippets/new to stay.
>
> So that leaves the po files.  Should I merge them over from translation
> or not?
>
> Francisco, any idea?

Turns out that running "make po-update" on the current version I arrived
at leaves stuff unchanged.  That looks like a good sign with regard to
its consistency, so I'll do the first merge to staging.  That does not
imply that translation now is severed from stable (or that we should
merge translation back into staging): it just means that we got the
first merge resolution done, incorporating the current translation work
into staging.  This does not affect translation at all: translation work
of the stable branch should continue until complete.

-- 
David Kastrup