On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I don't think this discussion is appropriate for bug-lilypond.
> Please follow up on -devel.
Sorry! I meant to post to -devel, don't know why it ended up in bug-. My bad.
Janek
___
bug-lilypond
I don't think this discussion is appropriate for bug-lilypond.
Please follow up on -devel.
- Graham
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
[1] Note, however, that ANY change, even a very small, subtle change, is a
really grave argument for a music publisher against using lilypond.
I wrote a huge piece (~95 pages full score, 23 orchestra instruments, choir,
etc) a few years
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
> [1] Note, however, that ANY change, even a very small, subtle change, is a
> really grave argument for a music publisher against using lilypond.
> I wrote a huge piece (~95 pages full score, 23 orchestra instruments, choir,
> etc) a few
