Re: Does the following Python error in the musicxml tests ring a bell?

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

Re: Does the following Python error in the musicxml tests ring a bell?

David Kastrup
Jonas Hahnfeld <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 21:40 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <
>> [hidden email]
>> > writes:
>>
>> > Am Montag, den 02.03.2020, 20:10 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > dev/translation-merge
>> > >
>> > > Fails at make test (at least on my system).
>> >
>> > Ah, the merge re-instantiated some code for Python 2. The following
>> > diff fixes 'make test' for me:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > But very please DO NOT MERGE your branch dev/translation-merge into
>> > master: It will pull in most of the cherry-picked commits from
>> > stable/2.20 which will probably render 'git bisect' useless. Not sure
>> > if that was done for previous releases but it certainly doesn't seem
>> > right for that many commits in stable/2.20 that are not in master.
>>
>> This is a travesty.  I was sure that I checked out every...  every merge
>> conflict outside of Documentation/?? ...
>>
>> Darn.  Those files weren't conflicting.
>>
>> Good that we talked about it.  I'll paste over everything else outside
>> of Documentation/??/ that differs from master still.
>>
>> If the merge commit touches nothing other than that, we should be fine,
>> right?
>
> Only for the final outcome. 'git bisect' will still walk into (most of)
> stable/2.20 which is likely not what we want it to do. I'll try to have
> a look later today if we can do better.

Darn.  So we'd need to get rid of the history, right?  Can translators
not update from or into current translations branch until we have this
figured out?

Sorry for the inconvenience, seems like I was rushing it too much.

--
David Kastrup


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: translation updates in master

David Kastrup
Jonas Hahnfeld <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2020, 17:50 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <
>> [hidden email]
>> > writes:
>> > Perfect. I only restored the following files from the branch to keep
>> > the Portuguese translation:
>> >  * Documentation/web/server/lilypond.org.htaccess
>> >  * ROADMAP
>> >  * python/langdefs.py
>>
>> Ouch.  Yes, I had assumed that everything important would be in
>> Documentation/??/ and I at least discovered on my own that I had
>> overlooked Documentation/pictures/ .  But not the rest.  I also had
>> conflicts in config.hh.in aclocal.in and some Makefile.  Could also be
>> related to Portuguese or something.
>
> Well, my heuristic of "all commits that touch Documentation/pt" did not
> catch all changes either: I've additionally picked
>> e47faac609 Doc: get rid of "translation missing for" [pt]
> to silence the warnings.
>
> PTAL and let me know if I should push to staging.

Well, your version is better than mine on translation though I am not
sure it is perfect (it's just hard to be sure).  I'd rather you'd
replace the branch on translation to reduce the possibility of it
getting reintroduced (which would ruin the effort).  And a few days
later we merge into staging.

Should we discover other problems, we can fix them in translation first.

Does that sound reasonable?

--
David Kastrup


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: translation updates in master

David Kastrup
Jonas Hahnfeld <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2020, 20:32 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <
>> [hidden email]
>> > writes:
>>
>> > Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2020, 17:50 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > Jonas Hahnfeld <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > > writes:
>> > > > Perfect. I only restored the following files from the branch to keep
>> > > > the Portuguese translation:
>> > > >  * Documentation/web/server/lilypond.org.htaccess
>> > > >  * ROADMAP
>> > > >  * python/langdefs.py
>> > >
>> > > Ouch.  Yes, I had assumed that everything important would be in
>> > > Documentation/??/ and I at least discovered on my own that I had
>> > > overlooked Documentation/pictures/ .  But not the rest.  I also had
>> > > conflicts in config.hh.in aclocal.in and some Makefile.  Could also be
>> > > related to Portuguese or something.
>> >
>> > Well, my heuristic of "all commits that touch Documentation/pt" did not
>> > catch all changes either: I've additionally picked
>> > > e47faac609 Doc: get rid of "translation missing for" [pt]
>> >
>> > to silence the warnings.
>> >
>> > PTAL and let me know if I should push to staging.
>>
>> Well, your version is better than mine on translation though I am not
>> sure it is perfect (it's just hard to be sure).  I'd rather you'd
>> replace the branch on translation to reduce the possibility of it
>> getting reintroduced (which would ruin the effort).  And a few days
>> later we merge into staging.
>>
>> Should we discover other problems, we can fix them in translation first.
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>
> Ok. So to double check I'll do
>  $ git push origin :dev/translation-merge :dev/translation-picking
> :dev/translation-picking-merge :translation
>  $ git push origin HEAD:translation

To push to a new branch, you need to _explicitly_ specify its full
reference (since Git cannot deduce it from preexisting ones, figuring
out whether you are talking about a tag or a branch or something else),
so you need

git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/translation

And for now, I'd only delete translation (that is necessary, of course)
and leave the other references in case we want them for comparison.
They are probably good to go in a few weeks.

--
David Kastrup