Merging translation and new \relative

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Merging translation and new \relative

Jean-Charles MALAHIEUDE
Hi David,

What would be more appropriate to have
master->translation->staging ?

Before applying tracker 3229, between 3229 and 3231, or after 3231?

Cheers,
Jean-Charles


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Merging translation and new \relative

David Kastrup
Jean-Charles Malahieude <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi David,
>
> What would be more appropriate to have
> master->translation->staging ?
>
> Before applying tracker 3229, between 3229 and 3231, or after 3231?

No rush here.  For one thing, 3231 will happen before 3229.  Since 3231
changes about one or two dozen occurences of \relative { ... } but not
much else, the order of merging is not all that important.

\relative { ... } will stop working completely, but the same commit
changes all occurences of it, including the occurences in translations
(since the conversion is automatic).  So the timing of merges is not
critical, but it makes sense to do a pingpong merge soon after issue
3231 passes.

The gigantomanic convert-ly run of issue 3229 will not happen in the
next few weeks (or I should be quite surprised).  When we do it, it
makes sense to synchronize master and translations immediately before,
and immediately afterwards.

Instead, there will be a small version of issue 3229 (likely a separate
issue) that implements the new \relative { ... } behavior and documents
it (the current issue 3229 does not even bother documenting as it is
more a threat of concept), but without the large conversion.  It makes
sense to let this trickle through into translations (at least those
which are maintained somewhat timely) before thinking about tackling the
big convert-ly job.

So in short: no rush to do anything just yet.

--
David Kastrup


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Merging translation and new \relative

Jean-Charles MALAHIEUDE
Le 09/03/2013 18:03, David Kastrup disait :

> Jean-Charles Malahieude <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> What would be more appropriate to have
>> master->translation->staging ?
>>
>> Before applying tracker 3229, between 3229 and 3231, or after 3231?
>
> [...]
>
> So in short: no rush to do anything just yet.
>

Then what has been updated in translation over the past 3 weeks might
already go to staging?




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Merging translation and new \relative

David Kastrup
Jean-Charles Malahieude <[hidden email]> writes:

> Le 09/03/2013 18:03, David Kastrup disait :
>> Jean-Charles Malahieude <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> What would be more appropriate to have
>>> master->translation->staging ?
>>>
>>> Before applying tracker 3229, between 3229 and 3231, or after 3231?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So in short: no rush to do anything just yet.
>>
>
> Then what has been updated in translation over the past 3 weeks might
> already go to staging?

I don't see anything speaking against that.  Actually, I can't think of
any situation right now where synchronizing would be a bad idea.

--
David Kastrup