2011/2/19 Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com>: > 2011/2/19 Janek Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com>: >> 2011/2/19 Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com>: >>> I also updated the issue. In summary, I don't think the issue is a >>> problem, and I think fixing it is contraproductive. >> >> I'm not sure if i made myself clear. *I've already prepared* a >> modification for 250 out of 262 regtests that didn't end on a barline. >> So i'd prefer not to see several hour of my work wasted... > > Yes, that's why I feel a bit sad about having to write that, and I > know you will feel angry and sad for it, my apologies.
I feel sad and angry, but to be honest it's not exactly because my regtests patch is a failure. 6 days ago i've sent an e-mail titled "transition between full-length and shortened stems - please discuss", containing a fix for a problematic output we have, complete with compiled proof-sheets, engraved examples and blahblah. It required 7 minutes to look at the pdfs and choose which variant of the solution was better. Then somebody would push it, and i'd be able to continue my work (on the next part of the 'shortened flags issue'). Unfortunately only Werner replied; i felt disappointed, but decided to do something productive instead of nagging you, so that lilypond could benefit from my spare time. That's how the idea of fixing some frog issue came up, and now it looks that this will fail, too. Now, that's really disappointing :( > That said, if > we would have all regtests ending in a barline for some silly reason, > I would probably propose a frogs issue to remove all of the redundant > notes. Great. So basically it means that my whole idea of a "surprise fix" was wrong... I assumed that issue description provides all important information about an issue, including whether to fix it or not, and if anything should be checked first. > Also, the change introduces all kinds of false diffs if the fragment > is close to a single line of length. > > I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind 'frogs' issues, but before > they should be packaged up to be small, so nobody spends many hours on > them. Actually this one had had quite a low estimated time - 1 hour. So either i was unexpectedly slow or the time was estimated badly. Nevermind. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
