http://codereview.appspot.com/83046/diff/1/3
File scm/output-ps.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/83046/diff/1/3#newcode58
Line 58: (ly:all-output-backend-commands)
Perhaps this could be a macro (so that you don't need to c&p for every
backend). And if you add a -d option like Han-W
Can this be made so that the regtests and similar crash when an unknown
stencil expression is executed? Perhaps a -d option could help here.
http://codereview.appspot.com/83046/diff/1/5
File scm/output-svg.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/83046/diff/1/5#newcode284
Line 284: (if (< 0
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:12:19AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> 4. There is no disaster if we leave it GPL v2 as it is. I am sure
> that there are more interesting bugs in our tracker that need to be
> dealt with more urgently.
True... at least, unless we want to directly link with GPL v3 cod
Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
At the moment, I just want to compile the docs.
Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
done already -- you use the l
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote:
> > Well, I would recommend _at least_ 384MB, but running two OS'es
> > at the same time on a computer with 0.5G RAM can be hard.
>
> Actually, VirtualBox will not let me use less than 75% of my
Hello,
This is a followup to the patch I posted:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00453.html
Perhaps it would be better to define "empty" stencil routines instead
for every one that's missing; this technique is already used, for
example, in output-svg.scm:
(define (g
To do serious searches in the repo, my advice is to use git log in
your machine. You'll need a proper .mailmap file (I did one but cannot
find it right now).
2009/7/1 Mark Polesky :
>
> If I do an "author" search for Han-Wen (as an example) at
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have uploaded a patch to Rietveld:
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/83046/show
>
> Does anyone have comments for this patch?
I will provide some more background i
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
We had a *bad* experience with Wubi; somebody lost his computer (I think it
was the second Andrew, not Hawryluk.
I think we should not recommend wubi.
Carl
Ah. I vaguely recall this but I thought he only ended up with a
dual-boot machine when he thought it would be an
Hello,
I'm forwarding this to -devel according to Carl's proposals.
David Stocker has written an overview of desired features for lilypond
and I am
trying to write some music functions as a preliminary step for the
implemetation.
For this, I need to know the x and y coordinates of two consecut
When wanting to avoid dangerous hard disk operations, i would recommend
andLinux.
It runs a kernel within windows, and on top of the filesystem. You only need
access to ext3 partition somewhere for compiling (since andLinux does not
know "ln -sf" on NTFS or the like), running lilypond works perfec
We had a *bad* experience with Wubi; somebody lost his computer (I think it
was the second Andrew, not Hawryluk.
I think we should not recommend wubi.
Carl
On 7/1/09 11:50 AM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Mark Polesky wrote:
>> Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote:
> 1) Memory: use the recomme
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:40:55AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> If I do an "author" search for Han-Wen (as an example) at
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git, no results are
> returned. Am I doing something wrong or is this feature broken?
> Same for "committer".
Check the "re"
Mark Polesky wrote:
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote:
1) Memory: use the recommended base size of 384 MB?
As long as there's enough memory to run things, you're OK.
Extra memory needs will be met by using virtual memory (on the
hard disk).
Well, I would recommend _at least_ 384MB, but runni
If I do an "author" search for Han-Wen (as an example) at
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git, no results are
returned. Am I doing something wrong or is this feature broken?
Same for "committer".
- Mark
___
lilypond-devel mail
Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote:
> > > 1) Memory: use the recommended base size of 384 MB?
> >
> > As long as there's enough memory to run things, you're OK.
> > Extra memory needs will be met by using virtual memory (on the
> > hard disk).
>
> Well, I would recommend _at least_ 384MB, but ru
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:58:07AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 30-06-2009 om 15:04 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Patrick
> McCarty:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This patch should fix the "/usr/bin/python" problem for the Mac OS X
> > Python scripts; "/usr/bin/env python" is used instead.
>
Mark Polesky wrote:
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:>
Yep, sounds good. Would you prefer that I send text for review
and then create the patch when we like it, or should I just
create a patch to be reviewed?
You're a Doc editor, so why don't you just create a patch. I'll
review it once it's created.
1) Memory: use the recommended base size of 384 MB?
* are there system requirements for compiling LilyPond?
* Do I need more RAM to compile the program than I would to
compile just the docs?
* I initially selected 384, but then VirtualBox warned me that
384 MB is more than 75%
Mark,
Thanks for the updated feedback!
On 7/1/09 8:59 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote:>
>>> Yep, sounds good. Would you prefer that I send text for review
>>> and then create the patch when we like it, or should I just
>>> create a patch to be reviewed?
>>
>> You're
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:>
> > Yep, sounds good. Would you prefer that I send text for review
> > and then create the patch when we like it, or should I just
> > create a patch to be reviewed?
>
> You're a Doc editor, so why don't you just create a patch. I'll
> review it once it's created.
Jon,
On 7/1/09 7:59 AM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Yep, sounds good. Would you prefer that I send text for review and
> then create the patch when we like it, or should I just create a
> patch to be reviewed?
You're a Doc editor, so why don't you just create a patch. I'll review it
once it's creat
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Perhaps somebody-not-Mark could write the instructions in CG 1.3,
then a Frogmeister-not-Mark could proofread those instructions and
add whatever else is needed.
If you want to rename the section, go ahead. If you want to
suggest a different location fine; I haven't rea
On 7/1/09 1:32 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:07:08PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 6/30/09 1:30 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>>
>>> regarding this...
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00294.html
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archiv
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Hmm, I read a bit more in that thread. It looks to me as if
>
> 1 there is a basic consensus amongst the core developers
> that a move to GPL v3 (not sure about GPL v3 or later)
> is desirable
>
> 2a Han-Wen even has done quite a bit
Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:07:08PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
On 6/30/09 1:30 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
regarding this...
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00294.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00303.html
Mark Polesky writes:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> 1 there is a basic consensus amongst the core developers
>> that a move to GPL v3 (not sure about GPL v3 or later)
>> is desirable
>>
>> 2a Han-Wen even has done quite a bit of initial paperwork
>>
>> 2b no-one has offered to do the work of t
If you want to customize these macros, it's much better to keep the
original ones untouched and
define your own versions. For example:
myVoiceOne = { \voiceOne \dynamicUp }
However, if you want to customize the way that the <<{...} \\ {...} >>
construct works (since it internally
does settings
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> 1 there is a basic consensus amongst the core developers
> that a move to GPL v3 (not sure about GPL v3 or later)
> is desirable
>
> 2a Han-Wen even has done quite a bit of initial paperwork
>
> 2b no-one has offered to do the work of tracking down and
> get perm
Op woensdag 01-07-2009 om 00:37 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> Initial thoughts:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-05/msg00085.html
>
> nothing came of that (brief) discussion, though.
Hmm, I read a bit more in that thread. It looks to me as if
1 there
Op woensdag 01-07-2009 om 00:24 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> That said, this might change in the near future; binary install
> instructions are on the website, and compiling only needs to be in
> the CG. Stay tuned. :)
Just to be clear on this, compiling and dependency infor
Op dinsdag 30-06-2009 om 15:04 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Patrick
McCarty:
> Hello,
>
> This patch should fix the "/usr/bin/python" problem for the Mac OS X
> Python scripts; "/usr/bin/env python" is used instead.
Thanks, but this looks kludgy. Considering
class LilyPond ()
...
de
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:44:55PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> Now that the grob-properties are mostly sorted, the back-to-back
> 'direction entries for TextScript seem rather odd:
> http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/user/lilypond-internals/TextScript.html
>
> Can anyone verify uneq
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:05:50AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> Is there value in updating our copy of the GPL (in the file
> COPYING)? The version there is now 18 years old. The latest GPL
> version is from 2 years ago: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
>
> Here's an article on why to upgr
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:07:08PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 6/30/09 1:30 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>
> > regarding this...
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00294.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00303.html
Mailing l
Is there value in updating our copy of the GPL (in the file
COPYING)? The version there is now 18 years old. The latest GPL
version is from 2 years ago: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
Here's an article on why to upgrade. I can't tell if it really
applies to LilyPond. Any thoughts?
http://w
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:00:13AM +0300, Till Rettig wrote:
> A bit later there is mentioned the install.itely -- didn't it get parted
> into install and compile?
The texinfo file is still install.texi. The info in that file
were split between @section install and @section compile, but it's
st
37 matches
Mail list logo
