On Jul 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> The overall code makes obvious that this has been created by a
>> comparative novice to the programming languages and data structures of
>> Lilypond. He has been doing his best.
>
> Good catch. The patch also
>
> @@ -208,63 +221,46 @@ Multi_measure_rest::church_rest (Grob *me, Font_metric
> *musfont, int measures,
> {
> SCM mols = SCM_EOL;
>
> - /* See Wanske pp. 125 */
> int l = measures;
> int count = 0;
>
> removes a reference to literature, which is very bad. Although I agree
> that the comment could elaborate a bit on what Wanske says on page 125,
> I don't think we want this kind of references removed.
>
> I think this patch should be reverted, moved to Rietveld, and worked on.
>
> Jan
>
The reason for my pow (2.0,...) is because the push broke make and my fix
passed regtests.
Perhaps this would be a good case study. Did
104f80daf1dab11ef5b598006e3d4be8dfbe1926 go through full review? Was it
verified with a full build? Did it pass regtests? Is there any chance that a
patch could make it through full review and still not build on all Unix-based
platforms? Normally, before making any change I post a patch for review, but
as this seemed fairly urgent, I sent an e-mail to devel and "fixed" the issue
so that the current master would build.
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
