Carlo,
On 12/12/13 06:06, carlopeter...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Patch for initial solution to issue 3714, regarding color-coding of
manuals. .
Make sure the tracker is set to patch-new else it won't get reviewed
properly (if at all) and certainly won't get tested and th
>> One extra lookup per glyph might be enough to explain the difference.
>> We need to look up the glyph to get a skyline, but maybe could cache
>> its index into the font in the stencil.
>
> That does not sound very useful since we still would do the lookup
> once per stencil rather than once pe
LGTM, with one small nit.
https://codereview.appspot.com/36480048/diff/1/Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css
File Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/36480048/diff/1/Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css#newcode456
Documentation/css/lilypond-manual
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26:55PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
> >In my searching, I didn't find a page that really did this. Section
> 1.2 of
> >the current CG should theoretically do this (based on the title), but
> it
> >mos
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Patch for initial solution to issue 3714, regarding color-coding of
manuals.
This patch color codes more-or-less according to David K.'s proposal on
the lilypond-user. Does not currently distinguish between dev and stable
in the styling, but the functionality is there to do
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26:55PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
>In my searching, I didn't find a page that really did this. Section 1.2 of
>the current CG should theoretically do this (based on the title), but it
>mostly just talks philosophically about git.
Sounds good. I've never li
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Graham Percival
wrote
>
> Fixing this doesn't require a reorganization. It requires
> deleting the two incorrect bits, dumping a @ref{Submitting a
> patch} or whatever the @node is called. On a similar note,
> there's at least 2 "checklists before submitting a pa
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:20:22PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
> I was able to connect to git with minimal fuss, and currently
> use the lily-git.tcl tool to handle commits and patches.
Great! This suggests that the introduction in the CG is ok.
>All that said, where things got interesting f
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:48:54PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> > PS ccing to Graham because he might be interested to know that
> > Someone(TM) is doing Something(TM) to help new contributors!
>
> Sorry, this awoke Grumpy Graham.
>
> Reor
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:21:28PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>- I changed "Easier editing" to "Editing".
ok. I also like the "applicances" tab, although I agree with you
that the name might be ideal (but I also can't think of a better
name right now).
>- I organized the entry scenario (= i
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:48:54PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> PS ccing to Graham because he might be interested to know that
> Someone(TM) is doing Something(TM) to help new contributors!
Sorry, this awoke Grumpy Graham.
Reorganizing the CG is very much a "something should be done, this
is som
Am 11.12.2013 12:29, schrieb openLilyLib:
Hi all,
as should be known by now I'm reviewing the content of lilypond.org to
make it more accessible to new users.
Actually I intended to clarify the command-line-enhanced-editor issue
to avoid the double-click-on-lilypond.exe-doesn't-open-program
m
Hi all,
as should be known by now I'm reviewing the content of lilypond.org to
make it more accessible to new users.
Actually I intended to clarify the command-line-enhanced-editor issue to
avoid the double-click-on-lilypond.exe-doesn't-open-program
misconception, but it seems to be necessary
Am 11.12.2013 15:14, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only one
On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:56 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> But that’s no good - we have to find a solution. Modularity, while
>> perhaps a good long term solution, is a long ways away. How are we
>> going
Am 11.12.2013 15:59, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:36, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to
proceed
with the following steps:
- get the propo
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:36, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally an
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only on
Urs Liska writes:
> I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
> with the following steps:
> - get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
> (Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only one formal
> review in the end)
> - Once tha
Mike Solomon writes:
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But that’s no good - we have to find a solution. Modularity, while
> perhaps a good long term solution, is a long ways away. How are we
> going to deal with this in 2014?
By making headway and not be defeatist
I have a headache after the first file of 30, so this is just this one
file and does not imply that the others are fine.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7185044/diff/164001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7185044/diff/164001/l
hi Janek,
2013/12/11 Janek Warchoł :
> 2013/12/10 :
>>> However, if you don't mind, i'd prefer to leave it as is - i have
>>> _already_ spent about 4 hours cleaning up and rebasing commits to make
>>> them somewhat ordered for review, and i'm quite tired.
>>
>>
>> I do mind. this is not the sort
Hi all,
[I have sent a message a few hours ago, but from a different email
account.
If this first email should go through nevertheless, the email you
are reading
now is the only relevant version.]
as should be known by now I'm currently reviewing the content of
lilypond.org to make i
2013/12/10 Janek Warchoł :
> 2013/12/7 Janek Warchoł :
>> i'm infuriated. A new contributor had turned up, read CG and sent his
>> patch to the "frogs" mailing list, which, as far as i know, is dead
>> (and since lilynet is down, i'm not sure it's actually working at
>> all).
>> I'm so angry that
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Mike Solomon wrote Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:22 AM
>
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> As opposed to me, Graham excelled at organizing
>>> and maintaining community efforts like this which makes his leavi
Mike Solomon wrote Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:22 AM
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> As opposed to me, Graham excelled at organizing
>> and maintaining community efforts like this which makes his leaving an
>> even larger loss.
>
> His leaving is a huge loss, and as
2013/12/10 :
>> However, if you don't mind, i'd prefer to leave it as is - i have
>> _already_ spent about 4 hours cleaning up and rebasing commits to make
>> them somewhat ordered for review, and i'm quite tired.
>
>
> I do mind. this is not the sort of thing that can be done in a
> follow up pa
2013/12/9 Janek Warchoł :
> recently my LilyPond activity was very high - not far from 24/7 ;-P -
> but unfortunately this period will end soon (my arms hurt - they need
> a break from computer...).
Turns out that my arms *really* need a break asap, so i won't be able
to finish what i wanted - jus
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>
> We are currently taking a look at how to create regions of LilyPond that
> can be worked on independently and without affecting the overall quality
> of LilyPond. If we manage to do this successfully, we'll be abl
2013/12/10 Phil Holmes
> - Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG"
> To:
> Cc: ; ;
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
>
>
>
>
>> \faster-but-uglier
>>> \a-lot-faster-but-a-lot-uglier
>>> \ridiculously-fast-and-heinou
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:22:19 -0800, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "Keith OHara" writes:
>>
>>> The last time we had a doubling of time required on Windows relative
>>> to Linux, issue 1926, it was repeated calls to find_by_name() that go
>>> through Pango to the font server.
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>> I had coffee with a developer a year or so ago who told me that he
>> dropped out of the project because of commutation problems with David.
>> Last night I wrote to him to share some of these frustrations and he
>>
Mike Solomon writes:
> I had coffee with a developer a year or so ago who told me that he
> dropped out of the project because of commutation problems with David.
> Last night I wrote to him to share some of these frustrations and he
> wrote back: “as long as David is leading up the team, it’s a
34 matches
Mail list logo
