Re: Remove Smob::type_p_name_ default (issue 287350043 by d...@gnu.org)

2016-03-02 Thread dak
Reviewers: carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, Message: On 2016/03/03 00:48:04, Carl wrote: LGTM. Thanks for dealing with this so quickly! Carl Quickly? We went months without release because of C++ compiler problems related to this exact type match already once. And a number of patches. I don

Re: GSoC - ScholarLY

2016-03-02 Thread Urs Liska
Hi Jeffery, Am 03.03.2016 um 06:03 schrieb jeffery shivers: > Dear LilyPond team, > > I'd like to apply for GSoC to contribute to ScholarLY as > a student with Urs Liska. This is great news! > > I've been a user of LilyPond and LaTeX for a while now, > and am intrigued by the ScholarLY/openLil

GSoC - ScholarLY

2016-03-02 Thread jeffery shivers
Dear LilyPond team, I'd like to apply for GSoC to contribute to ScholarLY as a student with Urs Liska. I've been a user of LilyPond and LaTeX for a while now, and am intrigued by the ScholarLY/openLilyLib project. I have less familiar, but basic, understandings of Python and Scheme, from recr

Remove Smob::type_p_name_ default (issue 287350043 by d...@gnu.org)

2016-03-02 Thread Carl . D . Sorensen
LGTM. Thanks for dealing with this so quickly! Carl https://codereview.appspot.com/287350043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread Simon Albrecht
On 03.03.2016 00:19, Trevor Daniels wrote: Simon Albrecht wrote Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:52 PM >I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I >started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only >mark issues as verified, when the change is already in

Re: Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread David Kastrup
Simon Albrecht writes: > Hello, > > I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I > started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only > mark issues as verified, when the change is already included in an > official release? > For curiosity, following the

Re: Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread Trevor Daniels
Simon Albrecht wrote Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:52 PM > I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I > started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only > mark issues as verified, when the change is already included in an > official release? Yes,

Re: Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread Simon Albrecht
On 03.03.2016 00:15, Urs Liska wrote: Am 02.03.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Simon Albrecht: Hello, I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only mark issues as verified, when the change is already included in

Re: Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread Urs Liska
Am 02.03.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > Hello, > > I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I > started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only > mark issues as verified, when the change is already included in an > official release? > For c

Verifying issues

2016-03-02 Thread Simon Albrecht
Hello, I noticed that there have been many ‘Issues to verify’ around, so I started to catch up with these. Now the question is: Shouldn’t we only mark issues as verified, when the change is already included in an official release? For curiosity, following the CG instruction I took the committi

Re: starting to contribute (GSoC)

2016-03-02 Thread Simon Albrecht
On 02.03.2016 20:56, Carl Sorensen wrote: There are some issues that have been identified as easy. You can locate them by searching for "Frog" on the issues list: https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/search/?q=frog Or, to exclude closed issues:

Re: starting to contribute (GSoC)

2016-03-02 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 3/1/16 9:07 PM, "lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu@gnu.org on behalf of Nathan Chou" wrote: >I've downloaded LilyDev and successfully compiled the current master, and >was looking through the issue tracker for a simple task to help me >understand the codebase. However I'm not sure what

Re: starting to contribute (GSoC)

2016-03-02 Thread Urs Liska
Hello Nathan, welcome to the lilypond-devel list. I hope we'll find a way for you to join us sustainably :-) Your post is not fully clear, though (at least to me), as I think it gives too little information to estimate your experience (combined with the willingness to learn). If you want to go f