Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 07:36:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Can you figure out what steps you did for pushing staging to master,
>> perhaps using the reflog or other personal history? I made sure that I
>> had a merge commit in staging for doing the tuning work.
>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 07:36:23AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Can you figure out what steps you did for pushing staging to master,
> perhaps using the reflog or other personal history? I made sure that I
> had a merge commit in staging for doing the tuning work.
I copied&pasted from a previous
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 07:25:19AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:56PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond
> >> is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source,
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:55:13PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > that is a concern, but I have no energy left to be concerned about it.
>> > Note that merging from dev/staging to master will be completely
>> > automatic (including the t
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:56PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond
>> is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_
>> PostScript file.
>
> ... so instead of only generating
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5307059/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 11-10-26 01:18 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the comments!
Just a technical note - this issue was closed after the patch was pushed
to current master, but I don't mind opening it again to continue a
discussion about what this patch (if Colin has no objections).
I'm all in favour o
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:55:13PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > that is a concern, but I have no energy left to be concerned about it.
> > Note that merging from dev/staging to master will be completely
> > automatic (including the tests to determine if this is safe
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1020
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1020: There are two types of
footn
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:56PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond
> is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_
> PostScript file.
... so instead of only generating snippets it needs, you want to
gen
If you're doing a workshop, I imagine it's sort of an intro, and that recent
changes won't really matter. 2.12.3 is still perfectly usable.
As far as EXT2/3/4 on a thumb drive, you can set the GID of the files to a
group that all the users are members of, such as "user", and make sure group
owners
Il 26/10/2011 23:03, Alex Austin ha scritto:
Isn't lilypond in the official Ubuntu repo?
yes, but it's still v2.12.3
I want to use the last stable
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-
Il 26/10/2011 22:55, Alex Austin ha scritto:
Most USB sticks are formatted as FAT and not EXT, so they lose file
permission bits. Not sure that lilypond would still be executable off of
a thumb drive.
I'll use ext.
The only concern I have is precisely about permissions.
IIRC, as the files I've
Isn't lilypond in the official Ubuntu repo?
- Alex
--
It is referred to as the Fibonacci meal. Today's dinner is the sum of
yesterday's leftovers and the day before's leftovers.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Federico Bruni wrote:
> Il 26/10/2011 22:59, Alex Austin ha scritto:
>
> Can lilyp
Il 26/10/2011 22:59, Alex Austin ha scritto:
Can lilypond be installed in /opt/? Ask the admin if that's possible.
That's where 3rd-party software usually goes.
No, they told me that no 3rd-party software is allowed.
Just official Ubuntu repository.
Can lilypond be installed in /opt/? Ask the admin if that's possible. That's
where 3rd-party software usually goes.
- Alex
--
It is referred to as the Fibonacci meal. Today's dinner is the sum of
yesterday's leftovers and the day before's leftovers.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Federico Bru
Il 26/10/2011 22:45, -Eluze ha scritto:
i have a USB-stick with 4GB and one with 16GB (both for the price of 10-20
bucks, one bought a few years ago the other 1 year ago).
on the 4GB stick i could store more than 50 versions of lilypond (plus jedit
or Frescobaldi…)
i don't understand the proble
Most USB sticks are formatted as FAT and not EXT, so they lose file
permission bits. Not sure that lilypond would still be executable off of a
thumb drive.
- Alex
--
It is referred to as the Fibonacci meal. Today's dinner is the sum of
yesterday's leftovers and the day before's leftovers.
On We
Federico Bruni-5 wrote:
>
> Lilypond sh package decompressed is around 60 MB.
>
> I guess that the best solution is bringing a bunch of USB drives and
> copying the executables there.
>
> But I wonder if there's any other solution...
> I don't know ho many USB drives I'll need.
>
i have a U
Another option is, once the files are stripped down, pack them up in a
squashfs, and loop-mount them in place when needed.
- Alex
--
It is referred to as the Fibonacci meal. Today's dinner is the sum of
yesterday's leftovers and the day before's leftovers.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Feder
Il 26/10/2011 07:34, Alex Austin ha scritto:
mkdir $HOME/lilypond
mount none -t tmpfs $HOME/lilypond
cd $HOME/lilypond
wget /url/of/lilypond.sh
./lilypond.sh
Figure out what packages you don't need, delete them and the .sh
package, and copy everything else into a different, non-tmpfs directory
in
second draft
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1025
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1025: All grobs, top-level
I don't understand beam-quanting well enough to evaluate most of the
code, but I've seen some concerns in properties and regtests.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/5293060/diff/2004/input/regression/beam-broken-scriabin-individual.ly
File input/regression/beam-broken-scriabin-indivi
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:40:27 -0700, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
What needs comments?
Description of the different setup of the three instances of
Beam_scoring_problem, and their goals.
-) the x-span of the Beam are stored in X-positions
(calc_x_positions). these are used everywhere that
Thanks for the comments!
Just a technical note - this issue was closed after the patch was pushed
to current master, but I don't mind opening it again to continue a
discussion about what this patch (if Colin has no objections).
The code I'm dealing with in beam-quanting and beam is difficult to
d
Rather indecipherable.
The 350 lines of code re-ordering make it difficult to find the change
in function. Therefore I am not willing to say LGTM, and looks like
nobody else was, either.
It looks like the intent is, if consistent_broken_slope=#t, to join the
parts of a broken beam together and
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:22 PM, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> On 2011/10/26 15:41:12, MikeSol wrote:
>> All problems fixed and ready for a review.
>
> Thoroughly indecipherable.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5293060/
Sorry if anything's unclear - your intuition from a previous e-mail was right
On 2011/10/26 15:41:12, MikeSol wrote:
All problems fixed and ready for a review.
Thoroughly indecipherable.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5293060/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypon
Reviewers: Keith, mike_apollinemike.com,
Message:
All problems fixed and ready for a review.
A few things:
1) please ignore the commented out printf statements. i use them for
debugging, and i'll delete them before pushing.
2) the regtest may be a little excessive :) unless people think this
Well, I am currently in the process of running make info (similar to
make doc), and this is totally silly.
In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond
is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_
PostScript file. Then GhostScript is run _once_
Graham Percival writes:
> that is a concern, but I have no energy left to be concerned about it.
> Note that merging from dev/staging to master will be completely
> automatic (including the tests to determine if this is safe).
It can't always be automatic if parallel pushes to master happened an
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:04:48AM -0600, Colin Campbell wrote:
> Procedurally, I gather that the patch meister doesn't really care
> whether a patch is on /staging or /master, only that Patchy has
> checked it, and that there are no howls of protest in the discussion
> on Rietveld or the various l
Colin Campbell writes:
> A couple of points for clarity, then:
>
> Procedurally, I gather that the patch meister doesn't really care
> whether a patch is on /staging or /master, only that Patchy has
> checked it, and that there are no howls of protest in the discussion
> on Rietveld or the variou
On 11-10-25 11:04 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 06:26:01AM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
Procedural question - fixes for 1990 and 1992 are in dev/staging and may
or may not be in master (I haven't checked yet this morning).
If they're in staging, then that mea
"Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool)" writes:
> I thought it was part of 2.14.1 source tarballI, probably I have
> changed it myself accidentally, changed this line:
>
> $$ = scm_list_2 (ly_lily_module_constant ("line-markup"), $1);
> to
> $$ = $1;
>
> when playing with it, as the source tarballs ar
I thought it was part of 2.14.1 source tarballI, probably I have changed it
myself accidentally, changed this line:
$$ = scm_list_2 (ly_lily_module_constant ("line-markup"), $1);
to
$$ = $1;
when playing with it, as the source tarballs are correct.
Thank you for your help,
Bertalan
On Wed, Oct
36 matches
Mail list logo
