Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

Werner LEMBERG writes: >> the VERSION_DEVEL is only used for text entries on the website, I >> believe. > > Ah, OK. This was my missing link. > >> Builds from stable/2.18 will be version 2.17.97. So I think it's >> right that the tag for 2.17.96 is also in stable/2.18? > > The tag for 2.17.96 s

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not >>> present on the master branch (because it's in the stable branch): >>> 050744bbb706525840a3014cd72b06fde945fa4d > > OK. > >> Yes, I have it here as well. > > Hmm. So why do we have > > commit 9918cd9

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

> the VERSION_DEVEL is only used for text entries on the website, I > believe. Ah, OK. This was my missing link. > Builds from stable/2.18 will be version 2.17.97. So I think it's > right that the tag for 2.17.96 is also in stable/2.18? The tag for 2.17.96 should *only* be in 2.18 – it was my

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/12/01 09:31:20, dak wrote: \fontsize does, but \small, \large, \huge, \super (!) all do an override to font-size which does _not_ affect baseline-skip in contrast to the markup command \fontsize changing everything in concert. We know that, David. See above were we considered "It m

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

- Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" To: Cc: ; Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:53 PM Subject: Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git Hmm. So why do we have commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95 Author: Phil Holmes Date: Sun Nov 24 22:05:16 2013 +

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

>> Hmm. So why do we have >> >> commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95 >> Author: Phil Holmes >> Date: Sun Nov 24 22:05:16 2013 + >> >> Release: bump VERSION. >> >> in the `master' branch? This looks incorrect to me, given that we >> currently derive 2.17.9X tarballs from

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

- Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not present on the master branch (because it's in the stable branch): 050744bbb7065

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

>> Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not >> present on the master branch (because it's in the stable branch): >> 050744bbb706525840a3014cd72b06fde945fa4d OK. > Yes, I have it here as well. Hmm. So why do we have commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95 Aut

Re: Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions from beamed music. (issue 34880043)

Reviewers: janek, Graham Percival, Message: On 2013/12/01 12:32:34, janek wrote: I very much like the simplification in the user interface! If i understand correctly, this function will overwrite beamExceptions with the pattern extracted from the music. No. It converts the given music into

Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions from beamed music. (issue 34880043)

I very much like the simplification in the user interface! If i understand correctly, this function will overwrite beamExceptions with the pattern extracted from the music. Would it be possible to instead have a function \addBeamException that would take just one pattern and _add it_ to the curre

Re: let RhythmicStaff use default barline extent (issue 35060046)

Reviewers: Keith, Message: On 2013/11/30 05:56:50, Keith wrote: Looks good. Repeat bars look fine (as they do in Drum Staff). The book by Kurt Stone happens to have some bar-lines in single-line percussion staves that are as tall as a 4/4 time-signature. Other examples in the same boo

Re: Rewrite the autobeam logic to use GUILE fractions rather than moments (issue 33930043)

LGTM (just a quick look) https://codereview.appspot.com/33930043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Doc: Changes.tely 2.18 release (issue 24180044)

LGTM thanks, James! https://codereview.appspot.com/24180044/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

small padding adjustment; issue 3630 (issue 34910044)

LGTM! https://codereview.appspot.com/34910044/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

hairpin: start at left edge of a rest (issue 34870044)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/34870044/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

Janek Warchoł writes: > 2013/12/1 Janek Warchoł : >> 2013/12/1 Phil Holmes : >>> - Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" >>> To: >>> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM >>> Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release! >>> >>> That's s

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

2013/12/1 Janek Warchoł : > 2013/12/1 Phil Holmes : >> - Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM >> Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git >>> Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release! >> >> That's strange - I did the release as clos

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

2013/12/1 Phil Holmes : > - Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM > Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git >> Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release! > > That's strange - I did the release as close to the standard way as I could, >

Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git

- Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG" To: Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release! That's strange - I did the release as close to the standard way as I could, and the release process normal

PATCHES: Countdown for December 4th - 06:00 GMT

Hello, *Countdown – December 4th – 06:00 GMT* 3675

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/12/01 09:16:14, Keith wrote: On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, wrote: > I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if > the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so > it's not making things worse. I

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, wrote: I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so it's not making things worse. I suggest to push this patch, and then work on making this smarter (in the spirit

Re: Completion_*_engraver: add means to preserve scale factor; issue 3650 (issue 35370043)

LSTGM https://codereview.appspot.com/35370043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel