On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:10:18AM +0300, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:17:59 +0100, Graham Percival wrote: > >We have now reached 0 Critical issues. It would be great if we > >could verify the fixed issues, and if we could find out if > >anything broke in 2.15.10. > > Just a note - if 2.16.0 is around the corner, I'll need to make sure > that all of the flags that are supposed to be transparent in the > docs (meaning all flags that had their stems set as transparent) are > in fact transparent. I did my best with this, but I know I missed > this in Trevor Baca's Cary (and perhaps other stuff as well). idem > for stroke style and other once-Stem-now-Flag properties.
... This has nothing to do with 2.16.0, and everything to do with allegedly adding a Critical regression. However, "documentation is obsolete/misleading" is not listed under the points for a Critical issue: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/gop_002dprop-8-_002d-issue-priorities (NB: I've just realized that I haven't updated the "Issue clarification" section of the CG; I'll get to that later. The above link is the official GOP proposal) With that in mind, I have added: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1874 and it will not block 2.16. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
