fixes crash on click on compact track label button #3463

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Mar 30, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@BaraMGB
Contributor

BaraMGB commented Mar 28, 2017

fixes #3454

@jasp00

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasp00

jasp00 Mar 30, 2017

Member

It would be better if you unconditionally create and hide m_renameLineEdit in the constructor.

Member

jasp00 commented Mar 30, 2017

It would be better if you unconditionally create and hide m_renameLineEdit in the constructor.

@BaraMGB

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BaraMGB

BaraMGB Mar 30, 2017

Contributor

Thank you for the help, @jasp00

Contributor

BaraMGB commented Mar 30, 2017

Thank you for the help, @jasp00

@lukas-w lukas-w merged commit f8bf07b into LMMS:stable-1.2 Mar 30, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@jasp00

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasp00

jasp00 Mar 30, 2017

Member

I do not get this workflow. master needs this patch too, but a direct commit overrides Travis guard.

Member

jasp00 commented Mar 30, 2017

I do not get this workflow. master needs this patch too, but a direct commit overrides Travis guard.

@tresf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tresf

tresf Mar 30, 2017

Member

I do not get this workflow. master needs this patch too, but a direct commit overrides Travis guard.

In regards to stable-x.x --> master, here's some examples of how we've done this in the past... 23f720f 815a70a 00cb2b1

Member

tresf commented Mar 30, 2017

I do not get this workflow. master needs this patch too, but a direct commit overrides Travis guard.

In regards to stable-x.x --> master, here's some examples of how we've done this in the past... 23f720f 815a70a 00cb2b1

@jasp00

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasp00

jasp00 Mar 31, 2017

Member

here's some examples of how we've done this in the past...

But these still override Travis checks.

Member

jasp00 commented Mar 31, 2017

here's some examples of how we've done this in the past...

But these still override Travis checks.

@tresf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tresf

tresf Mar 31, 2017

Member

But these still override Travis checks.

Are you trying to bypass the CI testing since it's already been merged? We don't do that and I'm not sure we want to.

Member

tresf commented Mar 31, 2017

But these still override Travis checks.

Are you trying to bypass the CI testing since it's already been merged? We don't do that and I'm not sure we want to.

@jasp00

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasp00

jasp00 Mar 31, 2017

Member

Oh, you do sync PRs, such as #1115, #1129, and #1148. How do you exclude patches specific to the stable branch?

Member

jasp00 commented Mar 31, 2017

Oh, you do sync PRs, such as #1115, #1129, and #1148. How do you exclude patches specific to the stable branch?

@tresf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tresf

tresf Mar 31, 2017

Member

How do you exclude patches specific to the stable branch?

Vesa used to hit these occasionally. If they don't apply to master chances are something has changed and they won't merge due to conflict.

The only way I'm aware is through the manual process of >>>>>>>>> conflict-resolution... e.g. 8b9868e

e.g.

# Conflicts:
#	src/gui/FileBrowser.cpp
Member

tresf commented Mar 31, 2017

How do you exclude patches specific to the stable branch?

Vesa used to hit these occasionally. If they don't apply to master chances are something has changed and they won't merge due to conflict.

The only way I'm aware is through the manual process of >>>>>>>>> conflict-resolution... e.g. 8b9868e

e.g.

# Conflicts:
#	src/gui/FileBrowser.cpp
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment