Phil Holmes wrote Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:34 PM
> I looked there, but couldn't see the changes. The volta end mark is OK, I
> think, but the extra open repeat is definitely a bug, IMHO. If you agree,
> I'll add it to the tracker.
I, for one, agree the open repeat at the end of the previo
- Original Message -
From: "Keith OHara"
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: 2.15.42 regtests
Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes:
There are a number of significant changes, and 2 or 3 possible
regressions.
Please look and check.
Almost all
Keith OHara writes:
> Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes:
>
>> There are a number of significant changes, and 2 or 3 possible regressions.
>> Please look and check.
>
> Almost all of these are from the revert of Pál's first attempt at
> issue 2553.
Perhaps it would make sense for Phil to do a
Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes:
> There are a number of significant changes, and 2 or 3 possible regressions.
> Please look and check.
Almost all of these are from the revert of Pál's first attempt at issue 2553.
'arpeggio-no-staff' and other moving time-signatures
all the minor slur change
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: 2.15.42 regtests
"Phil Holmes" writes:
The output from my pixel comparator is here:
http://www.philholmes.net/lilypond/regtestresults/2.15.42/
There are a n
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> The output from my pixel comparator is here:
>
> http://www.philholmes.net/lilypond/regtestresults/2.15.42/
>
> There are a number of significant changes, and 2 or 3 possible
> regressions. Please look and check.
context-string-tuning.png: change is the intended consequen
