Hi David
Thanks for the update.
You wrote Monday, May 29, 2017 9:56 PM
> Gianmaria Lari writes:
>>
>> what's the better way to give a financial contribution?
>
> In Europe's EURO zone (guessing from your name, that would likely be the
> case) SEPA transfers are usually easiest (account number
Gianmaria Lari writes:
> Trevor wrote:
>
>
>> I'll definitely turn on my financial contribution again.
>>
>
> what's the better way to give a financial contribution?
In Europe's EURO zone (guessing from your name, that would likely be the
case) SEPA transfers are usually easiest (account number
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Alexander Kobel writes:
>>
>>> +1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
>>> ... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
>>> choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming automatic
>>> e
On 2017-01-20 10:46, David Kastrup wrote:
> Knut Petersen writes:
>
>> Hi everybody!
>>
+1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming auto
The autoextender patch only adds extenders at places where extenders
can be added without it.
That does not sound like we should remove __ from lyrics to me.
I don't understand that comment.
With the autoextender patch there will be an extender if a melisma is
detected and there is enough pl
Hi (almost) everybory (dropping -user)!
On 2017-01-20 10:20, Knut Petersen wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
>>> +1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
>>> ... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
>>> choir literature (especially combined with the upco
Knut Petersen writes:
> Hi everybody!
>
>>> +1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
>>> ... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
>>> choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming automatic
>>> extenders). Unfortunately, assignment of
David Kastrup writes:
> Alexander Kobel writes:
>
>> +1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
>> ... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
>> choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming automatic
>> extenders). Unfortunately, assignm
Hi everybody!
+1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming automatic
extenders). Unfortunately, assignment of lyrics to *container*
contexts does not w
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:01:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Trevor Daniels" writes:
>>
>> > David, you wrote Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:18 AM
>> >
>> >> it would appear that my excursion into a regular workplace ended up
>> >> somewhat shortlived.
>
> Ouch, t
Alexander Kobel writes:
> +1. A personal wish: I think that \lyricsto ChoirStaff = "ctx" {
> ... } has the potential to be a killer feature w.r.t. usability for
> choir literature (especially combined with the upcoming automatic
> extenders). Unfortunately, assignment of lyrics to *container*
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:01:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Trevor Daniels" writes:
>
> > David, you wrote Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:18 AM
> >
> >> it would appear that my excursion into a regular workplace ended up
> >> somewhat shortlived.
Ouch, that sucks. :(
> Well, the 2.20 rele
Hi David,
On 2017-01-19 12:59, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David, you wrote Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:18 AM
it would appear that my excursion into a regular workplace ended up
somewhat shortlived.
Really sorry to hear that, but it's great to have you back!
Ditto. I wish that you would have
Trevor wrote:
> I'll definitely turn on my financial contribution again.
>
what's the better way to give a financial contribution?
g.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 19.01.2017 14:01, David Kastrup wrote:
it is an open question whether it makes sense to admit it
into 2.20.0 (or was the first version 2.20.1)
We had 2.18.0 and 2.18.2.
Best, Simon
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lis
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David, you wrote Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:18 AM
>
>> it would appear that my excursion into a regular workplace ended up
>> somewhat shortlived.
>
> Really sorry to hear that, but it's great to have you back!
>
>> So for the short time range, I am again dependent
David, you wrote Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:18 AM
> it would appear that my excursion into a regular workplace ended up
somewhat shortlived.
Really sorry to hear that, but it's great to have you back!
> So for the short time range, I am again dependent
> on support by other LilyPond lovers.
Hi David,
Am 19.01.2017 um 11:18 schrieb David Kastrup:
> But at any rate, I hope to be on board at least for making LilyPond 2.20
> a thing.
to cut your long story even shorter: sad but glad to read that.
Urs
--
u...@openlilylib.org
https://openlilylib.org
http://lilypondblog.org
__
arranged because
my finances were not really working out with LilyPond.
I don't quite know where to go from here, so I'm pretty sure to be
around at least for February back in the Pond, and I'll probably take a
look at what options we have to divert donations through the FSF. They
ta
19 matches
Mail list logo
