Frederic,
I have made some comments in your message below. Thanks for taking on this
project.
This type of proposal probably should go to lilypond-devel, rather than
-user, so I'm cross-posting to -devel.
On 2/22/09 1:25 AM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am in charge of the question
Hi Francisco,
Francisco Vila a écrit :
I forward this to -devel, if there is no inconvenient and nobody does
it before, I could apply it next Tue or Wed.
Right. The attached patch removes the debug print command.
Could you remove the "print" command completely by pushing to Git directly?
If
Hi guys,
Trevor Daniels a écrit :
I'd go along with going straight to 2.13 too. AFAIK there are
no serious outstanding issues with 2.12.2 that must be fixed,
and I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the doc changes
which will appear in the next release. I'd rather they went into 2.13.
The
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:59 AM
If GUB3 is currently working and Han-wen feels like spending an
hour or two cutting a release and there are no problems -- all
three assumptons being fairly tenuous -- then I suppose we could
wait until 2.12.3 is out there. But I'm highl
lgtm
http://codereview.appspot.com/8686
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
lgtm
http://codereview.appspot.com/12661/diff/1/11
File scm/output-lib.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/12661/diff/1/11#newcode307
Line 307: (define-public ((tuplet-number::append-note-wrapper function
note) grob)
rename function to describe what it does.
http://codereview.appspot.co
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 07:14:15PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > Unless anybody complains within the next 48 hours, we'll switch to
> > 2.13 and get started with all the major changes. If somebody
> > complains, then we'll wait until 2.
