This is a continuation of an earlier thread:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-01/msg00534.html
I suppose I have a different git style than Carl and Trevor;
I don't really see the value in keeping outdated branches.
Or put another way, I don't see the harm in keeping all my
bra
Am Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 19:59:06 schrieb John Mandereau:
> Hi guys,
>
> Il giorno mar, 16/02/2010 alle 19.07 +0100, Francisco Vila ha scritto:
> > I understand it. But to put it simple: I'm not smart enough to guess
> > what did happen in such a complex commit, and that leads to nearly
> >
Marc Hohl writes:
> After reading through the other posts, I think that overloading
> \repeat would not cover *all* possible
> cases. On the other hand, there should be *one* consistent way of
> doing any kind of repeats.
>
> David's comparison with goto-like structures seems to be the right
> ap
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:16:11AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> +The lily-git script is located at
> +...@uref{http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/plain/scripts/auxiliar/lily-git.tcl}.
Could this be inside an @example ?
> +Using a web browser (or @command{wget}), save the page as
> +...@
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:11:37PM +0100, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2010/2/16 John Mandereau :
> > OTOH we'd like to require that commits don't break docs build, which is
> > incompatible with what you're asking.
>
> OK. My apologies for having pushed some changes in the past which led
> to broken d
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:02:11PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 16/02/2010 alle 15.23 +, Trevor Daniels ha scritto:
> > The change seems to have started after commit
> > c258b7788db8a717b4741f02d9f5cc52862338d4
> > which was applied by John on Christmas Eve.
> > As part of his
On 2/16/10 10:46 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
> ssh: connect to host 199.232.41.69 port 22: Bad file number
> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
>
I got this problem when I had a bad ssh key.
I think it was a bad key file, but I may have needed to create a new key
pair to get it ba
carl.d.soren...@gmail.com schrieb:
Looks good to me, with the exception of the hardcoded value stuff.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/181144/diff/4008/5018
File lily/bar-line.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/181144/diff/4008/5018#newcode242
lily/bar-line.cc:242: m.add_at
Patrick McCarty schrieb:
Hi Marc,
On 2010-02-15, Marc Hohl wrote:
I have
Stencil segno = Font_interface::get_default_font (me)->find_by_name
("scripts.varsegno");
How can I get the width of the glyph? Or alternatively, can I get
the width of the stencil defined as above?
Untested, b
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 2/15/10 12:33 PM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Hello all,
I have uploaded some enhancements due to Alexander Kobel's proposals.
The first attempt to upload broke on my console with some error messages,
so I did it again - now I see that I uploaded two identical versions.
A
John, you wrote
Unless the docs output caused by this issue is unbearable even
during
the two days it may take me to fix it from now, please don't
commit this
so-called fix.
It's not an urgent problem, and I can't push a fix anyway at
the moment, so I'm happy to leave it to you. Thanks.
Tr
2010/2/16 John Mandereau :
> OTOH we'd like to require that commits don't break docs build, which is
> incompatible with what you're asking.
OK. My apologies for having pushed some changes in the past which led
to broken docs; in this case, I was confident in that moving blocks in
originals should
Ian Hulin schrieb:
Hi Marc,
On 15/02/10 18:32, Marc Hohl wrote:
Ian Hulin schrieb:
[...]
Secondly, what I had in mind was this kind of thing:
* \dalsegno and \dacapo - both of these start off a segno/dacapo
section. I know it's a bit weird that the \dacapo command would
have
Il giorno mar, 16/02/2010 alle 15.23 +, Trevor Daniels ha scritto:
> The change seems to have started after commit
> c258b7788db8a717b4741f02d9f5cc52862338d4
> which was applied by John on Christmas Eve.
> As part of his tidying up, the option list is
> sorted in line 1236, which places the li
Hi guys,
Il giorno mar, 16/02/2010 alle 19.07 +0100, Francisco Vila ha scritto:
> I understand it. But to put it simple: I'm not smart enough to guess
> what did happen in such a complex commit, and that leads to nearly
> undoable translation updates. Others may be smarter than me, so it is
> ma
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:19 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
I've not been able to push to Savannah this afternoon. I
get:
ssh: connect to host 199.232.41.69 port 22: Bad file
number fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Same error with pull.
Is this a problem at the S
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I've not been able to push to Savannah this afternoon. I
> get:
>
> ssh: connect to host 199.232.41.69 port 22: Bad file
> number fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
>
> Same error with pull.
>
> Is this a problem at the Savannah end or mine?
I did a successful ssh
Any objections? Okay to push?
- Mark
From 8bdf00a89df764363d02972bca571464dc50f650 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Polesky
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:10:44 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: CG: add lily-git instructions.
---
Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi | 102 ++
2010/2/13 Graham Percival :
> But until/unless that happens,
> we'll maintain the status quo.
I understand it. But to put it simple: I'm not smart enough to guess
what did happen in such a complex commit, and that leads to nearly
undoable translation updates. Others may be smarter than me, so i
I've not been able to push to Savannah this
afternoon. I get:
ssh: connect to host 199.232.41.69 port 22: Bad file number
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Same error with pull.
Is this a problem at the Savannah end or mine?
Trevor
___
Trevor Daniels wrote Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:59 AM
Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:12 AM
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Trevor Daniels
wrote:
While answering a user question I noticed that
some examples in the LM which were earlier on
a single line now spread un
Hi David,
Excellent points -- in particular:
> Those "goto" and "function calls" should be able to have some basic
> effects not just on performance, but also on typesetting: ties starting
> before a branch point (or function return) need to be ended in each
> branch, the same for slurs and so on
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been lurking a bit on this thread, but felt I should comment.
>
> I personally think we need a more general structure than \repeat will
> ever be able to reasonably offer.
My take on this is that we need the equivalent of (multiple) "goto" and
function
Hi all,
I've been lurking a bit on this thread, but felt I should comment.
I personally think we need a more general structure than \repeat will ever be
able to reasonably offer. Essentially, we need to be able to say that a single
movement/piece [of Lilypond code] consists of one or more \sect
Hi David,
On 16/02/10 07:00, David Pounder wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: Ian Hulin
To: David Pounder
Sent: 15.2.10, 22:18:25
Subject: Re: [frogs] Da Capos, Codas and Segnos
On 15/02/10 18:47, David Pounder wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: Ian Hulin
"David Pounder" writes:
>> --- Original Message ---
>> From: Ian Hulin
>> To: David Pounder
>
> Apologies for the blank replies - my e-mail client has been playing
> up.
While you are at it: could you _please_ cut out anything from your
article quotes that is not relevant to your reply
Marc Hohl writes:
> I have also thought about implementing this properly.
>
> I had the idea to extend the \repeat syntax:
>
> \repeat segno {.A.}
> \alternative {{ .B. }{ .C.}}
That appears quite preferable to me. One problem I see is that there
sometimes is a number of repeat structures. An
Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:12 AM
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Trevor Daniels
wrote:
While answering a user question I noticed that
some examples in the LM which were earlier on
a single line now spread undesirably over two
lines in both html and pdf versions. Y
28 matches
Mail list logo
