On 5/26/09 3:48 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/5/25 Andrew Hawryluk :
>
>> Yes, I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Neil for catching those!
>
> No problem.
>
> I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier; though I'd taken a cursory look at
> the patch (and noticed the backquote issue), I didn't expec
On 5/26/09 3:55 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen :
>
>> On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check
>> convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as
>> far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing conver
2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen :
> On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check
> convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as
> far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly
> regression tests?
I'm not sure how that would
2009/5/25 Andrew Hawryluk :
> Yes, I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Neil for catching those!
No problem.
I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier; though I'd taken a cursory look at
the patch (and noticed the backquote issue), I didn't expect it to be
committed so soon.
Regards,
Neil
___
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen :
>>> Thanks, Applied.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here:
>>
>> - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in
>> th
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 07:14:28AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> Graham, I added a comment to the bugtracker, and tried to change the status,
> but I couldn't find a way to do it? Do I have access to change status?
You have the same access as Valentin, and he can do this stuff.
To change th
On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen :
>> Thanks, Applied.
>
> Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here:
>
> - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in
> the bug tracker) will be ignored
>
> - entries of the form (notename .
2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen :
> Thanks, Applied.
Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here:
- keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in
the bug tracker) will be ignored
- entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled:
\set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2)
On 5/23/09 8:26 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
>> convenience?
>
> Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would
> change the status t
On 5/23/09 8:39 PM, "Patrick McCarty" wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
>>> convenience?
>>
>> Actually, the ide
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
>> convenience?
>
> Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would
> change the st
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
> convenience?
Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would
change the status to fixed, and Valentin would verify it when
2.13.1 GUB is rel
Thanks, Applied.
Valentin,
Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
convenience?
Thanks,
Carl
On 5/22/09 9:11 PM, "Andrew Hawryluk" wrote:
> This patch will allow convert-ly to process this:
>
> \version "2.11.0"
>
> {
> c d'4 ees
> \set Staff.keySignatur
13 matches
Mail list logo
