Re: Fwd: Re: Issue 3719 in lilypond: Patch: CG: Add comment about git-cl editor

[Urs Liska]

Am 22.12.2013 10:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Would somebody please be so kind and push the attached patch.
> >
> > I rebased on origin/master and ran ct-section source-code.
> >
> > make doc gave an error, but this pointed to
> > "fatal error: failed files: "60/lily-338514d2.ly""
> > so I think I can ignore this?
>
> Actually, you can't ignore this.  Take a look at
> out/lybook-db/60/lily-338514d2.ly and identify which place in your docs
> it comes from.
>
> It's not part of the reviewed patch, obviously, but it would seem like
> you managed to mess something up in your tree for a different reason.

Oh, it's a different issue.
That one was caused by running make doc from a not current build 
directory (the snippet used newer functionality or syntax).

Now make doc ends with

###

make[4]: Entering directory 
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression/lilypond-book'
GNUmakefile:24: warning: overriding commands for target 
`out-www/collated-files.list'
../../../make/lysdoc-rules.make:6: warning: ignoring old commands for 
target `out-www/collated-files.list'
cd ./out-www && 
/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/scripts/build/out/run-and-check 
"dblatex suffix-lyxml.xml" "suffix-lyxml.dblatex.log"

Please check the logfile suffix-lyxml.dblatex.log for errors

make[4]: *** [out-www/suffix-lyxml.pdf] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory 
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression/lilypond-book'
make[3]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory 
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression'
make[2]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory 
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input'
make[1]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current'
make: *** [doc-stage-1] Fehler 2

###

I don't see that logfile in input/regression/lilypond-book (nor a pdf).

I'm puzzled ...


> I see that you used @code{vi} and @code{git-cl} rather than @command{vi}
> and @command{git-cl}: any particular reason for that?

I was suggested to use that on Rietveld.
So, no, no particular reason.

> If not, I would lean towards fixing this up before pushing.  Ok with
> you?

As I'm still working on it with the make doc issue I can also fix that 
myself and resend a new patch.

Urs