Re: dev/staging fail: illegal entry in bfrange

2011-10-28 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Percival writes: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 07:52:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival writes: >> >> > Can anybody shed some light on this? 5 minutes of poking around >> > in the log file didn't reveal any other problems. >> >> I looked at the diff. Mike's favorite mista

Re: dev/staging fail: illegal entry in bfrange

2011-10-28 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Percival writes: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 07:52:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival writes: >> >> > Can anybody shed some light on this? 5 minutes of poking around >> > in the log file didn't reveal any other problems. >> >> I looked at the diff. Mike's favorite mista

Re: dev/staging fail: illegal entry in bfrange

2011-10-28 Thread Graham Percival
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 07:52:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival writes: > > > Can anybody shed some light on this? 5 minutes of poking around > > in the log file didn't reveal any other problems. > > I looked at the diff. Mike's favorite mistake: F

Re: dev/staging fail: illegal entry in bfrange

2011-10-28 Thread David Kastrup
Graham Percival writes: > Trying to build the docs on dev/staging fails with this: > > > Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap > Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap > ... > Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap > Error: Illegal entry in bfra

dev/staging fail: illegal entry in bfrange

2011-10-28 Thread Graham Percival
Trying to build the docs on dev/staging fails with this: Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap ... Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap /usr/bin/tex

Re: issues to verify

2011-10-28 Thread Colin Campbell
On 11-10-28 07:51 AM, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote: On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote: I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed - otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and find they don't work. Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad,

Re: issues to verify

2011-10-28 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:51:33PM +0300, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote: > On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote: > > I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed - > > otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and > > find they don't work. > Well.. I think _

Re: scheme-tutorial.itely: avoid unnecessary copying (issue 5314065)

2011-10-28 Thread dak
Reviewers: carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, Ian Hulin (gmail), Message: On 2011/10/28 23:04:31, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote: David, I think you've updated an example in two places, and added material which needs to reference the second example after the first one. I disagree. I see only one example h

Re: scheme-tutorial.itely: avoid unnecessary copying (issue 5314065)

2011-10-28 Thread ianhulin44
David, I think you've updated an example in two places, and added material which needs to reference the second example after the first one. You're trying to describe things about coding within music functions before the text gets round to mentioning them. This section is trying to hand-hold the r

scheme-tutorial.itely: avoid unnecessary copying (issue 5314065)

2011-10-28 Thread Carl . D . Sorensen
LGTM Carl http://codereview.appspot.com/5314065/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: issues to verify

2011-10-28 Thread Dmytro O. Redchuk
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote: > I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed - > otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and > find they don't work. Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad, I mean. Do developers need it? Should we requ

Re: issues to verify

2011-10-28 Thread Phil Holmes
- Original Message - From: "Dmytro O. Redchuk" To: "Graham Percival" Cc: Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:29 PM Subject: Re: issues to verify On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 07:23 Graham Percival wrote: Dmytro, Hi there, I see 40 issues to verify. Some of them are for 2.15.15, which is ok

2.15.16 regtests

2011-10-28 Thread Phil Holmes
Official comparison looks good - lots of Cell count reductions, but nothing else significant I can see. Pixel comparison will need to wait till after our show is finished on Saturday night. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-

Re: issues to verify

2011-10-28 Thread Dmytro O. Redchuk
On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 07:23 Graham Percival wrote: > Dmytro, Hi there, > I see 40 issues to verify. Some of them are for 2.15.15, which is > ok since it's only been 3 days since that went up, but I also see > a bunch for 2.15.14 and 2.15.13. > > It's your job to either: > 1. make the bug squad d

Re: Sketch for in-notes. (issue 5293053)

2011-10-28 Thread m...@apollinemike.com
On Oct 28, 2011, at 3:24 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5293053/diff/11005/input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly > File input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly (left): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5293053/diff/11005/input/regression/footnote-b

Re: Sketch for in-notes. (issue 5293053)

2011-10-28 Thread n . puttock
http://codereview.appspot.com/5293053/diff/11005/input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly File input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly (left): http://codereview.appspot.com/5293053/diff/11005/input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly#oldcode1 input/regression/footnote-break-visibi

Re: Fixes slope errors from incorrect X extents in Beam::print. (issue 5293060)

2011-10-28 Thread m...@apollinemike.com
On Oct 28, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Keith OHara wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:34:00 -0700, m...@apollinemike.com > wrote: > >>> What about the x_span_ of the Beam_scoring_problem ? >> >> It represents two things at two different stages of Beam_scoring_problem. > > Too bad you didn't use two differ