> Emmentaler's flag glyphs are minimal: they deliberately don't
> overwrite a stem's tip, only overlapping with the stem in a thin,
> rectangular area [...]
>
> However, SMuFL expects scoring programs to use plain rectangle primitives
> for drawing stems. With this in mind, Bravura's flags cove
Wow!
Thanks everyone... even if a lot of this went over my head. I've never
rebased before, so I can't say what would be the better option.
At any rate, my understanding is that I'll organize my commits near the end
of the project to make sure everything is reviewable, correct? If that's
the case
Hi all,
I've been working on making flags appear at the correct position for both
Emmentaler and Bravura, and I've hit a snag.
Emmentaler's flag glyphs are minimal: they deliberately don't overwrite
a stem's tip, only overlapping with the stem in a thin, rectangular area
(see the attached Emmenta
> May I ask what you use the image-less info files for? Supporting
> them is one of the warts in the doc build, and I suspect they cater
> to a just small minority of our users.
Well, I personally use it for quickly checking the NR and the IR, but
this is of course not of much relevance.
On the
Hi all,
while running `make test` on a new patch I noticed these two lines:
lilypond-book.py: warning: deprecated ly-option used: 11pt=None
lilypond-book.py: warning: compatibility mode translation: staffsize=11
I don't remember having seen them before.
A problem?
Cheers,
Harm
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:30 AM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>
>> After the big #84 change (i.e., commit 82d72b747) I now see that
>> `.info` files are no longer built if I say `make all` – note I'm
>> talking about `.info` files without images.
>>
>> Is this intentional?
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:30 AM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> After the big #84 change (i.e., commit 82d72b747) I now see that
> `.info` files are no longer built if I say `make all` – note I'm
> talking about `.info` files without images.
>
> Is this intentional? If yes, please revert this decision.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:28 PM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > You haven't yet confirmed that if you 'remove/uninstall'
> > extractpdfmark you do NOT get the messages, only that you have it
> > installed and you get them - which is expected.
>
> Sorry for being imprecise. I have *always* `extractpdf
> You haven't yet confirmed that if you 'remove/uninstall'
> extractpdfmark you do NOT get the messages, only that you have it
> installed and you get them - which is expected.
Sorry for being imprecise. I have *always* `extractpdfmark`
installed, and since a long time (a few months) I *never*
On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:51, James Lowe wrote:
> On 05/08/2020 12:04, Dan Eble wrote:
>>>
>> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/304
>
> It seems I can reproduce this - albeit there are significant diffs between
> the part-comine-solo-end.eps files on each of the test-baselines.
On 05/08/2020 15:00, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
extractpdfmark not tex
(I assume that comment was a typo?)
Yes.
anyway with it installed you will get those messages, without you
won't (or at least I did not).
and it has been a thing for me for a lot longer than 3 weeks.
Well, as reported, I di
> extractpdfmark not tex
>
> (I assume that comment was a typo?)
Yes.
> anyway with it installed you will get those messages, without you
> won't (or at least I did not).
>
> and it has been a thing for me for a lot longer than 3 weeks.
Well, as reported, I didn't get those page messages sin
On 05/08/2020 12:04, Dan Eble wrote:
On Aug 4, 2020, at 07:29, Dan Eble wrote:
On Aug 4, 2020, at 07:03, James Lowe wrote:
On 04/08/2020 03:25, Dan Eble wrote:
The regression test framework fails to detect a significant difference (the
addition of a whole-measure rest) in the output of
i
Werner
On 05/08/2020 12:35, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Nope, IIRC. Only warnings that 'font foo is too large to be included
as a subfont' or something similar.
I've just tried to compile 2.20 and I get those same Page xx message
back then.
Hmm.
Go check out b39b2e652 for instance (that is the 2.
>> Nope, IIRC. Only warnings that 'font foo is too large to be included
>> as a subfont' or something similar.
>
> I've just tried to compile 2.20 and I get those same Page xx message
> back then.
Hmm.
> Go check out b39b2e652 for instance (that is the 2.20 'bump welcome'
> commit that Phil do
Hello
On 05/08/2020 11:01, Federico Bruni wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug, 2020 at 07:53, James wrote:
I am pretty sure I have been seeing these page counts for a while.
Me too. I think it happens when you have extractpdfmark installed.
yes that is correct - I remember now.
You can uninstall it if y
On Aug 4, 2020, at 07:29, Dan Eble wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 07:03, James Lowe wrote:
>>
>> On 04/08/2020 03:25, Dan Eble wrote:
>>> The regression test framework fails to detect a significant difference (the
>>> addition of a whole-measure rest) in the output of
>>> input/regression/part
On Wed, 5 Aug, 2020 at 07:53, James wrote:
I am pretty sure I have been seeing these page counts for a while.
Me too. I think it happens when you have extractpdfmark installed.
Hello Werner,
On 05/08/2020 09:39, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
On 05/08/2020 04:37, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If I now execute `make doc -j4`, I get zillions lines
Page 53
Page 1
Page 2
Page 235
...
emitted by gs, and which are completely useless and clutter the
terminal output. I
> On 05/08/2020 04:37, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> If I now execute `make doc -j4`, I get zillions lines
>>
>>Page 53
>>Page 1
>>Page 2
>>Page 235
>>...
>>
>> emitted by gs, and which are completely useless and clutter the
>> terminal output. I let the above command run overnigh
20 matches
Mail list logo
