Hi, i was cc'ed, so despite my "official" absence i'll reply :-)
2014-03-01 12:01 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>: > Hello LilyPond users, > > LilyPond's declared claim is "automated engraving", and we're often > talking about how exceptionally good its default results are. But we're > also often talking about stuff that isn't good enough by default (see for > example Janek's blog post about how many slurs and ties he had to fix for > our big Fried edition). > [...] > These benchmarks would automatically be built for any new version of the > website and give us a clear picture of what has to be done to achieve > perfection. > > Today I'd like to ask for suggestions: a) to assemble a set of score > _types_ to be used in that benchmark series, b) possibly for concrete > suggestions. > A choral piece: https://github.com/janek-warchol/eja-mater-demonstration In the first commit (566213f) you can see the "raw" (no manual adjustments) version, and the following commits add adjustments one-by-one, often with rationale in the commit message. I think this is a very good resource for benchmarking. Another two examples are here (too big for an attachment, so they'll be availabe in my Dropbox for a couple weeks) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6v9z7tapu5n48k6/htaH4MQlcQ There's one solo violin fragment with many problems marked, and another choral piece with a lot of markings (i know that the pdf is compiled with an old lily version, but >90% of the problems marked there remain in 2.19.3). Unfortunately the sources for the choral piece are partly broken - lyrics don't align with appropriate notes (but it's easy to fix that). The meaning of the colored markings is explained in another pdf. I hope it'll be useful. best, Janek
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
