Re: lilypond hangs

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:03:36 -0800, Jay Anderson wrote: I agree with Werner that this is a bug, but with the override it's low priority (it may be worth documenting however). I entered it as issue 2264. The algorithm looks like dynamic programming, which should be linear-time in the number

Re: lilypond hangs

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Keith OHara wrote: > \paper { paper-width= 1\mm } > { \override Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-permission = ##f >  \repeat unfold 400 { b'4 } } > >> Given this message [] >> >> it seems that previous versions of lilypond don't have this problem. > > >

PATCH: Countdown to 20120131

For 20:00 MST Tuesday, January 31 Documentation: Issue 2040 : Documentation for unpure-pure-containers - R 5569050 Issue 2162 : Pa

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Colin Campbell writes: > On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Thanks. Note that this does _not_ mean regtests and doc builds: we have >> automatisms for that. It means running your own files that use this >> feature, and reading the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new >>

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

On 12-01-29 11:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Werner LEMBERG writes: OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko. Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a compilation/testing error. Humpf.

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Werner LEMBERG writes: > [Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb] > >> It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading >> the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of >> the feature make sense to you. > > It was really good that you have been a pain in

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

[Applying rietveld 5595043 to git afb4c5fb] > It means running your own files that use this feature, and reading > the docs to see whether the docs as well as the new incarnation of > the feature make sense to you. It was really good that you have been a pain in the neck, since your patch causes

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko. >> >> Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward >> _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a >> compilation/testing error. > > Humpf. I wasn't fully aware of this

Re: Regtests 2.15.27

Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes: > I'm suspicious about collision-dots-move.ly. Look at the penultimate set of > notes The change was intended; when voices cross or mesh and dotted notes end up on the left, most situations are clarified if we raise the dots. The regression test happens

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

>> OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko. > > Same thing. Once it is in staging, it will move forward > _automatically_ to master potentially within hours unless there is a > compilation/testing error. Humpf. I wasn't fully aware of this automatism. OK, will apply man

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Werner LEMBERG writes: >> So check it out at least once it is in Patch-review orderly. That >> means that it is regtest-clean, but that does not mean that a >> feature change will make its main users happy. > > OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko. Same thing. Once i

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

> So check it out at least once it is in Patch-review orderly. That > means that it is regtest-clean, but that does not mean that a > feature change will make its main users happy. OK. BTW, I've meant staging, not master. Sorry for the thinko. > And I might point out that it was you who _repe

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Werner LEMBERG writes: >> I am not sure whether the q stuff should be slated for 2.16. It >> greatly simplifies things and decreases potential for problems, but >> I don't see people reporting any test results, and it certainly has >> seen less user contact than my totally new code. > > As soon

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

> I am not sure whether the q stuff should be slated for 2.16. It > greatly simplifies things and decreases potential for problems, but > I don't see people reporting any test results, and it certainly has > seen less user contact than my totally new code. As soon it is in master, I'll check it.

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

Graham Percival writes: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:34:45PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Patchy has been running for about 6 hours on my laptop trying to get the >> current staging (which is one trivial commit ahead of master) checked. >> And is still on it. > > ??? if you look in the build d

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 03:34:45PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Patchy has been running for about 6 hours on my laptop trying to get the > current staging (which is one trivial commit ahead of master) checked. > And is still on it. ??? if you look in the build dir, what logs does it have? I mea

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

On Jan 29, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:34 PM > Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan > > >> James writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

- Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" To: Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:34 PM Subject: Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan James writes: Hello, On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote: Janek Warchoł writes: Keeping the staging-merge going would be a

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

James writes: > Hello, > > On 24 January 2012 22:20, David Kastrup wrote: >> Janek Warchoł writes: >>   Keeping the staging-merge going would be about five people committing to 50€ a month.  That is, of course, not enough for me to live on.  It merely means that taking on this du

Re: @rlsrnamed{Name,Translation} translates also the name in the URI

Got no answers on -devel, so I forward here (probably more appropriate place). Thanks, Federico Il 05/01/2012 13:44, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Issue 1721 reported that @rlsr{Name} keeps the text in english but translates the link in the translated manuals (no idea where the translation comes

Regtests 2.15.27

I'm suspicious about collision-dots-move.ly. Look at the penultimate set of notes - is it the quaver or the crochet that's dotted? (Well - I know it's obvious from the context, but the new dotting algorithm makes this much more difficult to tell - even though the others are generally better).

Re: Doc: NR Section on Upbeats made clearer (issue 5520056)

http://codereview.appspot.com/5520056/diff/7001/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5520056/diff/7001/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely#newcode1358 Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1358: The @var{duration} c

Re: a beaming regression?

"Phil Holmes" wrote in message news:jfsl4j$1su$1...@dough.gmane.org... "Janek Warchol" wrote in message news:CANYDDppbpzXAeepYCZ24rpu+RVQm21gO9beMCw357jxj_w=g...@mail.gmail.com... Hi, i think the output of beam-shortened-lengths.ly doesn't look good, see in current regtests http://www.lilypon

Re: Plans for changing chord repeat implementations

James writes: > So we need to make any tweaks to the NR since > > "...There is no longer any relation of > the implementation to \relative..." > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/single-voice#chord-repetition > > an @warning or @knownissue? It is more like removing warnings

Re: Plans for changing chord repeat implementations

David, On 29 January 2012 02:26, David Kastrup wrote: > Nicolas Sceaux writes: > >> Le 26 janv. 2012 à 11:00, David Kastrup a écrit : >> >>> The bad news is that absolute pitch friends would have to call the \q >>> function (any better name for it?) explicitly.  Since q is an input >>> convenien

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

David, On 29 January 2012 08:48, David Kastrup wrote: > James writes: > >> --snip-- >> james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh >> remote: Counting objects: 83, done. >> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done. >> remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0) >>

Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)

Reviewers: , Message: The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a typographical impact on the score. Description: Creates a MIDI note length formatter Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5

Re: somebody needs to run staging before 29 Jan

James writes: > --snip-- > james@jameslilydev2:~/Desktop/patchy$ ./run-lilypond-staging.sh > remote: Counting objects: 83, done. > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (57/57), done. > remote: Total 57 (delta 45), reused 0 (delta 0) > Unpacking objects: 100% (57/57), done. > From ssh://git.sv.gnu.or