lilypond processing failure with exported file

[cannam]

(I probably ought to file a bug for this... I started out writing to
the list because I noticed a Lilypond export failure immediately after
Michael had made some changes to Lilypond export, but now I look at
the error below I realise it's probably unrelated to those changes)

Start the current RG trunk, load the Ravel example file, export to
Lilypond and process, and I get the following (two distinct) errors:

GNU LilyPond 2.12.1
Processing `test.ly'
Parsing...
test.ly:436:62: error: syntax error, unexpected \<
            #(set-octavation 1) gis''' 32 #(set-octavation 1)
                                                              \< c''''
ais''' c'''' gis''' c'''' fis''' c'''' e''' gis''' fis''' gis''' e'''
gis''' dis''' gis''' #(set-octavation 0) cis''' dis''' c''' dis'''
ais'' dis''' gis'' dis'''
test.ly:483:17: error: unknown escaped string: `\sustainDown'
            e, 8
                 \sustainDown < e' gis > < e' gis > e, < gis e' > < e' gis >  |
test.ly:483:17: error: syntax error, unexpected STRING
            e, 8
                 \sustainDown < e' gis > < e' gis > e, < gis e' > < e' gis >  |
test.ly:287:0: error: errors found, ignoring music expression


Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[D. Michael McIntyre-3]

On Monday 29 June 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:

> Start the current RG trunk, load the Ravel example file, export to
> Lilypond and process, and I get the following (two distinct) errors:

Interestingly enough, with LilyPond 2.10 I only get one fatal error.  It trips
a false positive in the "rendering failed and brackets were turned on"
warning code. The brackets are fine.  The problem is you can't put an ottava
and a hairpin at exactly the same place, apparently.

We should save a copy of the old Ravel and attach it to a bug report
documenting this LilyPond export quirk, but this kind of situation comes up
more often than you'd think, and it might not be practical to put in detour
code to try to cope with this confluence of Rosegarden elements in one spot.

The practical field solution to a problem like this is to move the hairpin.  I
deleted it, then moved it to start one note later and end one note sooner,
and it cured this for me.  (I achieved this with Thorn, although it would
have been easier with the modifier keys hooked up.  Shift click to do a note
by note selection doesn't work yet.)

Now that other bit you got about \sustainDown I can't duplicate here with
2.10, so it must be a 2.12 thing.  I don't have a copy of 2.12 handy to test
this out.  With 2.10, simply tweaking the hairpin starting at bar 90 makes
the file work.

Anyway, I'd file both of these as separate bug reports on SourceForge, as they
are long-term problems.  The hairpin rendering failure happens for me just
the same in Classic, and I imagine the other one would too, if I had 2.12
around to reproduce it.

--
D. Michael McIntyre

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[Chris Fryer]

Sorry if this is basics but I'm struggling with SVN.
As you may know, I've been working on a branch called newcontrolrulers.
I now realise that good practice would have been to keep this branch up
to date with trunk so I'm trying to merge changes from trunk into
newcontrolrulers in advance of merging newcontrolrulers back into trunk.

>From a freshly checked-out newcontrolrulers directory, I'm running:
svn merge
https://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/rosegarden/trunk/rosegarden

I had tried the same URL without the rosegarden on the end but the same
effect.
I just get silence, nada, nothing. Please tell me I'm doing something
stupid?
Chris


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[Chris Fryer]

On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:36 +0100, Chris Fryer wrote:
> Sorry if this is basics but I'm struggling with SVN.
Sorry. I was being a bit impatient ... boy it's slow! To say
anything ... at all!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[D. Michael McIntyre-3]

On Monday 29 June 2009, Chris Fryer wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:36 +0100, Chris Fryer wrote:
> > Sorry if this is basics but I'm struggling with SVN.
>
> Sorry. I was being a bit impatient ... boy it's slow! To say
> anything ... at all!

Did you have any luck with it yet?  I don't see any commit logs, so I fear
you're still struggling.

I hate doing merges.  Chris always makes it look so easy, but it's pulling
teeth to me.  If you're really stuck, I can try to help out though.
--
D. Michael McIntyre

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[cannam]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:42 AM, D. Michael
McIntyre<rosegarden.trumpeter@...> wrote:

> On Monday 29 June 2009, Chris Fryer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:36 +0100, Chris Fryer wrote:
>> > Sorry if this is basics but I'm struggling with SVN.
>>
>> Sorry. I was being a bit impatient ... boy it's slow! To say
>> anything ... at all!
>
> Did you have any luck with it yet?  I don't see any commit logs, so I fear
> you're still struggling.

Yes, I read that second email as saying "don't worry about it, it's
working, just about", so I didn't pile in with any suggestions either.
 But if you still need help, do say so.

> I hate doing merges.  Chris always makes it look so easy, but it's pulling
> teeth to me.

Yeah, I don't mind doing them.  In fact I'd be happy enough to simply
merge the branch back to trunk for you now, if you like.


Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[Chris Fryer]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Chris
Cannam<cannam@...> wrote:
>>> Sorry. I was being a bit impatient ... boy it's slow! To say
>>> anything ... at all!
>>
> Yes, I read that second email as saying "don't worry about it, it's
> working, just about", so I didn't pile in with any suggestions either.
>  But if you still need help, do say so.

It was running but I gave up after a couple of hours and the merge had
only got up to rev 9000 or so (should I have persevered?). From there
I got in a pickle with all future attempts falling over due to SSL
comms.

> Yeah, I don't mind doing them.  In fact I'd be happy enough to simply
> merge the branch back to trunk for you now, if you like.

I'd like to learn to do them, so just the right commands would be a great help.

How do I merge all revisions from trunk version 10208 to HEAD into my branch?
When I used the command above, it was merging stuff from revisions in
the 6 and 7 thousands!

I'm then happy to go through and resolve any conflicts (shouldn't be much work).

Then how do I merge the newly up-to-date branch back into trunk?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[cannam]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Chris Fryer<chrisf1874@...> wrote:
> How do I merge all revisions from trunk version 10208 to HEAD into my branch?

(sitting in your branch's working copy)

$ svn merge -r10208:HEAD
https://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net:/svnroot/rosegarden/trunk/rosegarden

I actually never type HEAD in that context, I always look up the
actual revision (currently 10456) and use that instead... for weird
superstitious reasons that I can't properly explain.

That will merge to your current working copy -- it doesn't affect the
repository.

It's conceptually equivalent to the following (though this wouldn't
actually work exactly as written):

$ svn diff -r10208:HEAD
https://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net:/svnroot/rosegarden/trunk/rosegarden
> patchfile
$ patch < patchfile

However, I wouldn't actually do the merge in that direction if I were
you.  I would merge straight back to the trunk.  That's _because_ the
merge only directly affects the working copy, so you have plenty of
opportunity to resolve any conflicts, build, and test before you
commit.  It also seems intuitively more sensible to keep the merge as
small as possible.

i.e. I would do something like

$ svn co https://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net:/svnroot/rosegarden/trunk/rosegarden
tmp-working-copy
$ cd tmp-working-copy
$ svn merge -r10208:HEAD
https://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net:/svnroot/rosegarden/branches/newcontrolrulers
[... resolve conflicts, build, test ...]
[... run "svn diff" and make sure what you're about to commit looks sane ...]
$ svn commit

That way you're pretty much guaranteed to make sure you commit nothing
more than a correct set of diffs that reflect what you did on your
branch, and you do it in a single commit.

> When I used the command above, it was merging stuff from revisions in
> the 6 and 7 thousands!

That's because you didn't give a revision range, and Subversion
doesn't actually know where your branch started.  Subversion doesn't
do any meaningful branch tracking at all.


Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[cannam]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Chris
Cannam<cannam@...> wrote:
> However, I wouldn't actually do the merge in that direction if I were
> you.  I would merge straight back to the trunk.

I should expand on this.  I'm effectively assuming that you will merge
back to trunk, then abandon the branch and continue working in trunk.
Hence, you want to merge once, and minimally, and should therefore
merge directly to trunk.

There is a common working practice which involves taking a branch,
then occasionally refreshing that branch up to date with trunk, while
maintaining your own changes on it and occasionally pushing those
changes back to trunk.  That's very easy to do with, for example,
Clearcase.  It's possible with Subversion, but it takes more care
(euphemism for "is a pain in the arse") because of Subversion's lack
of proper branch management.  If you wanted to do it that way, you
would indeed want to merge from trunk to your branch as in the first
command I gave in the last email.  But I wouldn't advise it unless you
have a very sound reason not to want to move your own development work
to the trunk.

In my opinion if your work is sufficiently advanced to merge to the
trunk at all (which basically means "advanced enough to look like it's
going to be a plausible approach" and not a great deal more) then it's
also advanced enough to be developed directly on the trunk, given that
trunk is pretty unstable anyway.


Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[Chris Fryer]

Merge direct to trunk makes sense.

> In my opinion if your work is sufficiently advanced to merge to the
> trunk at all (which basically means "advanced enough to look like it's
> going to be a plausible approach" and not a great deal more) then it's
> also advanced enough to be developed directly on the trunk, given that
> trunk is pretty unstable anyway.

I think it's a plausible approach ... just hope you guys agree!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

[Chris Fryer]

I've now done the merge successfully in both directions(!). Thanks for
your help.

Just got to get it working in the MatrixWidget again now. Shouldn't take
too long.

Chris




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@... - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel