James Lowe wrote:
> Don't worry, I've been on it, I didn't want to see this
> work go to waste as the patch became stale. So I've edited
> your work and created a new patch
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4124056/
>
> and this is the latest iteration of your patch.
This is so freakin' awesome. Man I love open source!
Thanks so much for taking this on. I'll just make one
general recommendation for the future: when posting on the
mailing list, always include links to non-obvious references
(especially Rietveld patches, which can be hard to find via
search). Even if the discussion is fresh on the mailing
list, if you're starting a new thread, leave some
breadcrumbs. Someone "from the outside" wanting to help out
will be able to jump in more easily.
Another note: I see some discussion in the comments
regarding my idiosyncratic use of @lilypond[] options, and
set-default-paper-size, etc. I do recall putting those in
for good reason, but now I regret not commenting them. I
have a vague memory that these choices were based on
comparing the results in both the html and the pdf output.
Have you checked both? I seem to recall having to go
through some hoops to get the pdf stuff looking
satisfactory. If you have some time (unfortunately I
don't), it might be worth exploring. I guess you could
compare the pdf differences between my original settings and
your revised settings.
But big thanks again (to you and the other reviewers) for
keeping this alive.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
