On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:53:41 -0700, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
To create a new track for each voice as we do now,
still seems a bit like a kludge to fix MIDI's brokenness.
It is, at least, the same kludge others (classicalmidiconnection.com) use when
they have more than 16 simultaneous lines of
lgtm
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/13002/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/13002/lily/beam.cc#newcode593
lily/beam.cc:593: Interval placements = robust_scm2interval
(me->get_property ("normalized-endpoints"), Interval (0.0,0.0));
spa
On 3/15/11 3:24 PM, "Janek Warchoł"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is quite a lot of space between flag and the notehead in case of
> downstem 64th and 128th notes (at least compared to 16th and 32nd
> flags). I *suppose* these flags were made this way because they were
> intended for use with both shor
On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/15/11 2:59 PM, "m...@apollinemike.com" wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Trevor Daniels"
>>> To: ; "lilypond-user"
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:24 PM
>
New patch set uploaded. Thanks for the comments, Han-Wen!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc#newcode176
lily/beam.cc:176: Beam::calc_feather_widths (SCM smob)
On 2011/03/15 13:03
Keith OHara schreef op di 15-03-2011 om 13:24 [-0700]:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:50:32 -0700, Jan Nieuwenhuizen
> wrote:>
> We have input\regression\midi-volume-equaliser.ly; the equalizer is
> still effective, but the values will probably need re-balancing if you
> implemnt dynamics differently.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:50:32 -0700, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:>
1) re-balancing the instruments
Do you have a test file for that?
We have input\regression\midi-volume-equaliser.ly; the equalizer is still
effective, but the values will probably need re-balancing if you implemnt
dynamics differe
Pushed as f93bc90b3ee5e5de96b59c8e81b4ea354d5b1927
Only @knownissue added.
Solving issue.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4248081/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Hello. This happens on _fresh_ repositories in one of my systems.
Clues suggest that my python installation is misconfigured.
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/fravd/source/lilypond/Documentation'
LILYPOND_VERSION=2.13.54 /usr/bin/python ../scripts/lilypond-book.py
-I ./ (...) usage.tely
...
Uni
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:ilnkda$k83$1...@dough.gmane.org...
I've checked both the official page and using my pixel comparator. Both
picked up Keith's changes to keep-inside-line settings for the 2 changed
tests; a couple of oddities on fret diagrams that I'll detail when I have
tim
Well,
)-Original Message-
)From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
)[mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On
)Behalf Of m...@apollinemike.com
)Sent: 15 March 2011 13:01
)To: Lily devel
)Subject: Small doc patch for woodwinds
)
)Could one of th
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
> wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, wrote:
>>>
I've sketched this out using your suggestion above (calculati
LGTM, go ahead and push.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4291047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> I've sketched this out using your suggestion above (calculating it once and
>>> returning the fraction for the called beam) -
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, wrote:
>
>> I've sketched this out using your suggestion above (calculating it once and
>> returning the fraction for the called beam) - nevermind my previous question
>> about redoing calculations. A new
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc#newcode176
lily/beam.cc:176: Beam::calc_feather_widths (SCM smob)
actually, you could just call this length-fraction; what's calculated
over here
Could one of the docs people reply w/ LGTM or w/ changes?
Thanks!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4291047
Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/14002/lily/beam.cc#newcode204
lily/beam.cc:204: SCM temp = scm_cons (scm_from_double
(feather_fractions[i][LEFT] / total_width), scm_from_double
(feather_fractions[
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, wrote:
> I've sketched this out using your suggestion above (calculating it once and
> returning the fraction for the called beam) - nevermind my previous question
> about redoing calculations. A new patch set is on-line.
> I still need to do the math for the
I've checked both the official page and using my pixel comparator. Both
picked up Keith's changes to keep-inside-line settings for the 2 changed
tests; a couple of oddities on fret diagrams that I'll detail when I have
time later; but no problems that I can see.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_
Keith OHara schreef op di 15-03-2011 om 03:26 [+]:
> Neil Puttock gmail.com> writes:
> The obvious fix allows make test-baseline to succeed, and could only affect
> midi, so I pushed it. cc: to Jan in case the 'obvious' was not the intent.
That's the right fix, thanks!
Greetings,
Jan.
--
Keith OHara schreef op ma 14-03-2011 om 13:50 [-0700]:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:14:14 -0700, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Midi tracks (from a Staff with midiInstrument) sometimes contain a
> program change event, sometimes not, depending on the path taken
> through Staff_performer::acknowledge_audi
> 1) re-balancing the instruments (because the new implementation messed up the
> equalizer)
Do you have a test file for that? As far as I can see, the velocity
still comes through the equalizer.
> 2) implementing (de)crescendi on held notes (which sometimes works
> accidentally in 2.12, due
23 matches
Mail list logo
