James writes:
> In the CG we have nothing for patch-waiting, but just the others,
> which leads me on to:
>
> "Patch-abandoned: the author has not responded to review comments for
> a few months."
>
> Assuming that no one changes a patch-waiting for X weeks, how many
> would it take - just throwi
On 29/10/13 14:14, James wrote:
On 29/10/13 09:19, Julien Rioux wrote:
On 29/10/2013 4:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Julien Rioux writes:
On 27/10/2013 2:09 PM, Janek WarchoĊ wrote:
That's good, but the most irritating thing about this patch is not
that i have to solve merge conflicts. I'm m
On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:32 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> I do not understand the Todo: comment; nothing should have been suicided
> at this stage. What is the life cycle of a Clef and the copies made for
> line-breaking possibilities?
The original clef is suicided in the handle_prebroken_depend
This looks correct.
It includes a pointer to the potential Clef in every single measure in
'pure-relevant-grobs', but the user of that list checks whether the Clef
would be visible.
The output with annotate-spacing=##t looks correct. The bar numbers are
still tentatively placed against the top
