2015-10-13 20:49 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>: > Can I assume that you two have looked enough on the code so I can merge > without further testing (I'd be glad in this case)? >
Looks good to me … with my limited understanding of how LilyPond works internally. But it is a small change that makes sense to me, and in my current score it works without flaws. > > Looks plausible. However, I have one suggestion (not relevant to the > decision of merging the pull request but rather as a suggestion for the > future): This Pull Request has one and a half single significant change > (the switch at the end and the include at the beginning). However, the > commit *also* contains a number of modifications that are mere > reformattings. It would be preferrable if these two could be separated > into separate commits. As it is a reviewer has to carefully check all > the modified lines. If it were two commits (one "work" and one > "clean-up") it would be much more obvious. Sure, thanks, I’ll keep that in mind! This time I only copied what was already there without thinking about that, sorry. -- Peter Crighton | Musician & Music Engraver based in Mainz, Germany http://www.petercrighton.de
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
