Now use astyle 2.02.1 (issue 5478072)

Reviewers: , Message: lilydev 2.0 currently contains astyle 2.02.1 Unfortunately, 2.02.1 produces slightly different formatting than 2.02. I would be fine with the 2.02.1 output, but I'm not certain it will meet with approval. Anybody object to this, and/or patch fixcc.py to produce the old ou

PATCH: Countdown to 20111213

For 21:00 MST Tuesday December 13, 2011 Build: 2075 : Implement GOP 9 - behavior of make doc - R 5453046 Defect: Issue 1798 : Full me

Re: $LILYHOME as $TEXMFHOME with LaTeX

Denis Bitouzé wanadoo.fr> writes: > I read the way of including LilyPond files here: > 2. or with the LilyPond directory ‘../ly’. > 2. with the 2nd one, the 'ly' directory could be > removed/replaced/overwritten when LilyPond is upgraded or reinstalled. > Maybe there is a misunderstandin

Re: center NoteColumn

Hi Harm, On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Morley < thomasmorle...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks for doing this! I did the next step to simplify the definition, > with defining "read-out". > Yes, this condenses the function quite a bit. Thinking about the problem some more

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

James writes: >> Your newsreader litters the source with unbreakable spaces.  Makes it >> harder to work with. > > > Hmm... > > I'm just using gmail on chrome > > Is this better? > > > > \version "2.14.1" > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> | } > { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > { << { e'1 } \\ {

never live on master or staging

Here's a tip that is making its way into the rewritten CG: don't leave your lilypond repository as "master" or "staging". To see the branch, add this: export PS1="\u@\h \w\$(__git_ps1)$ " to your ~/.bashrc (or just type it once to see what happens) The general idea is that you should always see

Prevents SpanBar Script collisions. (issue 5478064)

Reviewers: , Message: Hey all, The idea of this patch is that cross-staff grobs should be counted in axis groups unless they lead to cyclical callbacks (which is the case with Stems). It fixes issue 2065. Cheers, MS Description: Prevents SpanBar Script collisions. Please review this at http:

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

David, On 11 December 2011 15:05, David Kastrup wrote: > > James writes: > > > Hello, > > > > > > \version "2.14.1" > > > >  { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> |  } > >  { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |  } > > > >  { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> |  } > >  { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |  } > > > >  { << { e'

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

Xavier, On 11 December 2011 15:00, Xavier Scheuer wrote: > On 11 December 2011 15:56, James wrote: > > Hello, > > > > \version "2.14.1" > > > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> | } > > { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> | } > > { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

pkx166h-2 wrote: > > Hello, > > \version "2.14.1" > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> | } > { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> | } > { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e1 } >> | } > { << { e1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > I don't understan

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

James writes: > Hello, > > > \version "2.14.1" >   >  { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> |  } >  { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |  } > >  { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> |  } >  { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |  } > >  { << { e'1 } \\ { e1 } >> |  } >  { << { e1 } \\ { e'1 } >> |  } > > I don't understand why t

Re: Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

On 11 December 2011 15:56, James wrote: > Hello, > > \version "2.14.1" > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> | } > { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> | } > { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > { << { e'1 } \\ { e1 } >> | } > { << { e1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } > > I d

Positioning of two voices is inconsistent

Hello, \version "2.14.1" { << { e'1 } \\ { e'''1 } >> | } { << { e'''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } { << { e'1 } \\ { e''1 } >> | } { << { e''1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } { << { e'1 } \\ { e1 } >> | } { << { e1 } \\ { e'1 } >> | } I don't understand why the notes are not aligned in all cases. Is

Re: bad merge in staging

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 03:30:04PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > I would actually prefer if people _never_ actually did any work on their > own copy of staging. +1 I've just added a gitk step in the "pushing to staging" instructions. In the next few days I'll tackle the question of branching i

Re: bad merge in staging

"m...@apollinemike.com" writes: > Le Dec 11, 2011 à 3:04 PM, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> >> If Mike had used git pull -r instead of a plain pull without rebase, >> this "mess" would not have happened. > > > Ok - will do from here on out. The problem is that it is hard to prescribe a universal

Re: bad merge in staging

David Kastrup writes: > The "mess" that Mike left is typical for large scale branches, and it > could be fast-forwarded from staging to master (including the mess's > structure) once Mike put it to staging, so Patchy had no reason trying > to reorganize the material. > > Patchy does _not_, _never

Re: bad merge in staging

Le Dec 11, 2011 à 3:04 PM, David Kastrup a écrit : > > If Mike had used git pull -r instead of a plain pull without rebase, > this "mess" would not have happened. Ok - will do from here on out. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-dev

Re: bad merge in staging

Graham Percival writes: > We've got a mess in master now, starting with > 0f68a5a1b6f789c2a0ec0e4584a3495832a3b6d7 > > I noticed the problem before Patchy ran, but I assumed that the > merge --ff-only would reject the mess. Unfortunately it didn't, > so we now have a span of a few commits that

Re: bad merge in staging

Le Dec 11, 2011 à 2:30 PM, Graham Percival a écrit : > We've got a mess in master now, starting with > 0f68a5a1b6f789c2a0ec0e4584a3495832a3b6d7 > > I noticed the problem before Patchy ran, but I assumed that the > merge --ff-only would reject the mess. Unfortunately it didn't, > so we now have

bad merge in staging

We've got a mess in master now, starting with 0f68a5a1b6f789c2a0ec0e4584a3495832a3b6d7 I noticed the problem before Patchy ran, but I assumed that the merge --ff-only would reject the mess. Unfortunately it didn't, so we now have a span of a few commits that will fail to compile, as well as some

Re: lilydev 2.0

Jonathan, Graham et al. On 11 December 2011 12:16, Jonathan Kulp wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, James wrote: > >> >was expecting 11.04 (or whichever 11.x I thought we were planning). > >> > >> We are using 10.04 again; we're just updating the extra software. > > > > Yes this is b

Re: lilydev 2.0

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 06:16:54AM -0600, Jonathan Kulp wrote: > It worked in a VM for me, hopefully it will for you too. One mistake I > found is that the desktop launcher for the CG links to the 2.13 > version instead of 2.15 (*facepalm*). Forgot about that. I can fix and > make a new image. hol

Re: lilydev 2.0

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, James wrote: >> >    was expecting 11.04 (or whichever 11.x I thought we were planning). >> >> We are using 10.04 again; we're just updating the extra software. > Yes this is because 10.04 is a long-term support release. Next LTS is 12.04, coming out this spring.

Re: lilydev 2.0

Hello, On 11 December 2011 11:52, Graham Percival wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:49:51AM +, James wrote: > >--snip-- > >james@james-OptiPlex-990:~/Downloads$ md5sum > >ubuntu-lilydev-remix-2.0.iso ubuntu-lilydev-remix-2.0.iso.md5 > >b394cb547a558559e21dfdaf702ebe01 ubun

Re: lilydev 2.0

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:49:51AM +, James wrote: >--snip-- >james@james-OptiPlex-990:~/Downloads$ md5sum >ubuntu-lilydev-remix-2.0.iso ubuntu-lilydev-remix-2.0.iso.md5 >b394cb547a558559e21dfdaf702ebe01 ubuntu-lilydev-remix-2.0.iso >4067a00cfe9d8dc501fbeb32ab8f3020 ubuntu

Re: lilydev 2.0

Hello (again).. On 11 December 2011 11:49, James wrote: > Hello, > > On 10 December 2011 23:27, Jonathan Kulp wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM, James wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks for testing, James. :) >> > >> > >> > Downloading now. My Internet connection is not that fast, so I'll lea

Re: lilydev 2.0

Hello, On 10 December 2011 23:27, Jonathan Kulp wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM, James wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for testing, James. :) > > > > > > Downloading now. My Internet connection is not that fast, so I'll leave > it > > run over night (it's late here) and then have a go at build