(ccing Mike - should've done that earlier)
2013/5/7 David Kastrup :
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>> What i'm most surprised about is the commit message. There was a
>> reasonable, quite helpful description in the Rietveld review (see
>> https://codereview.appspot.com/7516048/) after i asked for
>> ex
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2013/5/6 David Kastrup :
>> Wow.
>>
>> commit 7b2cb93fc69c7d7c45f0ae6495f688752efeb107
>> Author: Mike Solomon
>> Date: Sat Mar 23 19:09:28 2013 +0100
>>
>> Fixes manual beaming over rests and vertical spacing problem
>> (issue 3242)
>>
>> The patch set removes code
2013/5/6 David Kastrup :
> Wow.
>
> commit 7b2cb93fc69c7d7c45f0ae6495f688752efeb107
> Author: Mike Solomon
> Date: Sat Mar 23 19:09:28 2013 +0100
>
> Fixes manual beaming over rests and vertical spacing problem (issue 3242)
>
> The patch set removes code that does not appear to have any rela
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> "Phil Holmes" wrote in message
> news:km8ll8$of0$1...@ger.gmane.org...
>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>> news:87li7sp0bp@fencepost.gnu.org...
>>> Urs Liska writes:
>>>
I don't know if it's a regression because I don't know if it
_deliberately_ worked
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:km8ll8$of0$1...@ger.gmane.org...
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87li7sp0bp@fencepost.gnu.org...
Urs Liska writes:
I don't know if it's a regression because I don't know if it
_deliberately_ worked in an earlier version.
But I just checked all
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87li7sp0bp@fencepost.gnu.org...
Urs Liska writes:
I don't know if it's a regression because I don't know if it
_deliberately_ worked in an earlier version.
But I just checked all versions I still have around and can say that
2.15.40
2.16.0 and
2.17.3
Urs Liska writes:
> I don't know if it's a regression because I don't know if it
> _deliberately_ worked in an earlier version.
>
> But I just checked all versions I still have around and can say that
> 2.15.40
> 2.16.0 and
> 2.17.3
> compiled the example correctly
>
> while 2.17.16 crops the b
Am Sonntag, den 05.05.2013, 12:30 +0200 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> 2013/5/1 Federico Bruni
> 2013/4/30 Urs Liska
> Hm, I recall having read about this or a similar issue
> recently, but I
> don't seem to be able to find it anymore ...
>
Am Sonntag, den 05.05.2013, 12:30 +0200 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> 2013/5/1 Federico Bruni
> 2013/4/30 Urs Liska
> Hm, I recall having read about this or a similar issue
> recently, but I
> don't seem to be able to find it anymore ...
>
2013/5/6 Urs Liska
> I don't know if it's a regression because I don't know if it
> _deliberately_ worked in an earlier version.
>
> But I just checked all versions I still have around and can say that
> 2.15.40
> 2.16.0 and
> 2.17.3
> compiled the example correctly
>
> while 2.17.16 crops the br
2013/5/1 Federico Bruni
> 2013/4/30 Urs Liska
>
>> Hm, I recall having read about this or a similar issue recently, but I
>> don't seem to be able to find it anymore ...
>>
>>
>
> yes, you mean this:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2013-04/msg00093.html
>
>
>
>> Searching the is
2013/4/30 Urs Liska
> Hm, I recall having read about this or a similar issue recently, but I
> don't seem to be able to find it anymore ...
>
>
yes, you mean this:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2013-04/msg00093.html
> Searching the issues I only found references to problems w
e.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2968&q=dpreview&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/dpreview-crops-staff-bracket-tp145267p145268.html
Sent from the Bugs mailing list arch
Hm, I recall having read about this or a similar issue recently, but I
don't seem to be able to find it anymore ...
Searching the issues I only found references to problems with vertical
croppings of -dpreview.
When compiling this:
\version "2.17.17"
\score {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff
14 matches
Mail list logo
