More Catalan translations

[Walter Garcia-Fontes]

Here is another file for the Catalan translation:

http://puna.upf.edu/0001-Doc-ca-Added-repeeats.itely-and-proofreading.patch

Thanks,

--
Walter Garcia-Fontes
L'Hospitalet de Llobregat

[Jean-Charles MALAHIEUDE]

Le 25/01/2017 à 17:43, Walter Garcia-Fontes a écrit :
> Here is another file for the Catalan translation:
>
> http://puna.upf.edu/0001-Doc-ca-Added-repeeats.itely-and-proofreading.patch
>
> Thanks,
>

Pushed as c8da9c504190cd84b6e296fbb4a3ddc356073ed6
with additional corrections in repeats.itely where you left some
@refusernamed instead of @rusernamed.

Cheers
Jean-Charles

[Walter Garcia-Fontes]

* Jean-Charles Malahieude, [hidden email] [28/01/17 14:37]:
> Pushed as c8da9c504190cd84b6e296fbb4a3ddc356073ed6
> with additional corrections in repeats.itely where you left some
> @refusernamed instead of @rusernamed.
>
> Cheers
> Jean-Charles

Thanks Jean-Charles.

I must be doing something wrong with my git commands, I remember I
corrected those in my branch before generating the patch (with "git
format-patch origin"), and I made sure I was not getting any compiling
errors before generating the patch file. But still, it looks like these
corrections were not introduced in the patch, to embarrass me once
again.  

If anybody can suggest what I may be doing wrong, it would be helpful.

Cheers,

--
Walter Garcia-Fontes
L'Hospitalet de Llobregat

[David Kastrup]

Walter Garcia-Fontes <[hidden email]> writes:

> * Jean-Charles Malahieude, [hidden email] [28/01/17 14:37]:
>> Pushed as c8da9c504190cd84b6e296fbb4a3ddc356073ed6
>> with additional corrections in repeats.itely where you left some
>> @refusernamed instead of @rusernamed.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jean-Charles
>
> Thanks Jean-Charles.
>
> I must be doing something wrong with my git commands, I remember I
> corrected those in my branch before generating the patch (with "git
> format-patch origin"), and I made sure I was not getting any compiling
> errors before generating the patch file. But still, it looks like these
> corrections were not introduced in the patch, to embarrass me once
> again.  
>
> If anybody can suggest what I may be doing wrong, it would be helpful.

You likely had not committed your last changes to the branch.

Doing something like

git commit --amend

without using -a or without having done "git add" of the respective
files immediately before committing can cause that.

Do
git diff HEAD
before git format-patch to make sure you don't have uncommitted changes.

--
David Kastrup

[Walter Garcia-Fontes]

* David Kastrup, [hidden email] [29/01/17 17:45]:

> Walter Garcia-Fontes <[hidden email]> writes:
> > I must be doing something wrong with my git commands, I remember I
> > corrected those in my branch before generating the patch (with "git
> > format-patch origin"), and I made sure I was not getting any compiling
> > errors before generating the patch file. But still, it looks like these
> > corrections were not introduced in the patch, to embarrass me once
> > again.  
>
> You likely had not committed your last changes to the branch.
>
> Doing something like
>
> git commit --amend
>
> without using -a or without having done "git add" of the respective
> files immediately before committing can cause that.
>
> Do
> git diff HEAD
> before git format-patch to make sure you don't have uncommitted changes.

Thanks David,

That's exactly it, very stupid on my part.

--
Walter Garcia-Fontes
L'Hospitalet de Llobregat

[David Kastrup]

Walter Garcia-Fontes <[hidden email]> writes:

> * David Kastrup, [hidden email] [29/01/17 17:45]:
>> Walter Garcia-Fontes <[hidden email]> writes:
>> > I must be doing something wrong with my git commands, I remember I
>> > corrected those in my branch before generating the patch (with "git
>> > format-patch origin"), and I made sure I was not getting any compiling
>> > errors before generating the patch file. But still, it looks like these
>> > corrections were not introduced in the patch, to embarrass me once
>> > again.  
>>
>> You likely had not committed your last changes to the branch.
>>
>> Doing something like
>>
>> git commit --amend
>>
>> without using -a or without having done "git add" of the respective
>> files immediately before committing can cause that.
>>
>> Do
>> git diff HEAD
>> before git format-patch to make sure you don't have uncommitted changes.
>
> Thanks David,
>
> That's exactly it, very stupid on my part.

I find git's index/cache/staging area very convenient for structuring a
large change into logical and coherent commits.

This convenience comes at a cost, and other version control systems have
chosen _not_ to implement something similar.

So I would not call this "very stupid".  Happens regularly to me as
well, and I notice only when doing that final git diff (and usually also
git log -p) before actually pushing.

--
David Kastrup

[Federico Bruni-3]

Il giorno lun 30 gen 2017 alle 9:19, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:
> So I would not call this "very stupid". Happens regularly to me as
> well, and I notice only when doing that final git diff (and usually
> also git log -p) before actually pushing.

I find useful displaying on the terminal prompt when there are changes
in the work tree or the git index:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Git_quick_reference#Display_current_branch_in_bash

Walter, if you had this enabled, you would have seen an asterisk on the
prompt.
Well, if you use LilyDev you should have it already.. but maybe you
didn't know what the asterisk means?

[Federico Bruni-3]

Il giorno lun 30 gen 2017 alle 15:00, Walter Garcia-Fontes
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>> I find useful displaying on the terminal prompt when there are
>> changes in the work tree or the git index:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Git_quick_reference#Display_current_branch_in_bash 
>> Walter, if you had this enabled, you would have seen an asterisk on
>> the prompt. Well, if you use LilyDev you should have it already..
>> but maybe you didn't know what the asterisk means?
> Thanks, Federico, I did notice the prompt but did not realize it
> could be used for that.

I see.. perhaps I may launch a browser at the end of lilydev setup
script and show a brief explanation for this

[Federico Bruni-3]

Il giorno mar 31 gen 2017 alle 17:25, Federico Bruni
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Il giorno lun 30 gen 2017 alle 15:00, Walter Garcia-Fontes
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>> I find useful displaying on the terminal prompt when there are
>>> changes in the work tree or the git index:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Git_quick_reference#Display_current_branch_in_bash 
>>> Walter, if you had this enabled, you would have seen an asterisk
>>> on the prompt. Well, if you use LilyDev you should have it
>>> already.. but maybe you didn't know what the asterisk means?
>> Thanks, Federico, I did notice the prompt but did not realize it
>> could be used for that.
>
> I see.. perhaps I may launch a browser at the end of lilydev setup
> script and show a brief explanation for this
>
>

For the records, I've just sent a patch which adds instructions in the
Contributor Guide:
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5160/