> On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Paul Morris wrote:
>
> LGTM, so that would make it: (I changed “The user describes” to “Users
> describe”, although either is fine with me.)
>
> LilyPond is a music engraving program devoted to producing the
> highest-quality sheet music possible. Users describ
Hi Urs,
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 4:20 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 27.01.2016 um 02:37 schrieb Paul Morris:
>> While we’re at it, one thing I’ve thought about is simplifying vertical
>> spacing changes. Basically something like this[1] but possibly integrated
>> into LilyPond. One i
Hi Paul,
Am 27.01.2016 um 02:37 schrieb Paul Morris:
> While we’re at it, one thing I’ve thought about is simplifying vertical
> spacing changes. Basically something like this[1] but possibly integrated
> into LilyPond. One idea is that alongside padding, minimum-distance, and
> basic-distanc
Paul Morris writes:
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Ouch. LilyPond is very dissimilar from TeX regarding a whole lot of
>> things but certainly in the context of a call for programmers.
>
> […]
>
>> Python is just used for some scripting but not in the core applica
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Ouch. LilyPond is very dissimilar from TeX regarding a whole lot of
> things but certainly in the context of a call for programmers.
[…]
> Python is just used for some scripting but not in the core application.
Good points. We could j
Paul Morris writes:
> Possibly we could add a description like this (from the 2012 GNU GSoC page):
>
> LilyPond is a music engraving program, devoted to producing the
> highest-quality sheet music possible. It is somewhat similar to TeX —
Ouch. LilyPond is very dissimilar from TeX regarding a w
Liska Date: 27/01/2016 10:12 PM (GMT+02:00) To:
lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: GSoC 2016 - GNU website listing
Am 27.01.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Paul Morris:
> So students can find us as one of the GNU projects, we should get LilyPond
> listed on the GNU GSoC suggestions page. Here’s
Am 27.01.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Paul Morris:
> So students can find us as one of the GNU projects, we should get LilyPond
> listed on the GNU GSoC suggestions page. Here’s the one for last summer:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/soc-projects/ideas-2015.html
>
> Seems we should just have a listin
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 27. Januar 2016 02:37:17 MEZ, schrieb Paul Morris :
>
>>Did I understand correctly that something like a "CTAN for LilyPond”
>>(CLAN) is already in the works and so wouldn’t be good for a GSoC
>>project?
>
> I understood that David had doubts about it even before I mentione
I forgot to mention that I asked those currently listed as mentors. I'll report
when all have responded.
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://list
Am 27. Januar 2016 02:37:17 MEZ, schrieb Paul Morris :
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:24 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> So my question could be rephrased: Would it be acceptable to suggest
>a
>>> GSoC project if such an external library is *not* going to be
>included
>>> in LilyPond directly? With r
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:24 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> So my question could be rephrased: Would it be acceptable to suggest a
>> GSoC project if such an external library is *not* going to be included
>> in LilyPond directly? With regard to the project I'm convinced that
>> this would work out i
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 26.01.2016 um 10:21 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska writes:
>>
>> Personally I don't think "integrating ScholarLY" with LilyPond is the
>> right course: it is a rather special-purpose case. I think the question
>> we should rather solve is how to modify LilyPond and i
Am 26.01.2016 um 10:21 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska writes:
>
>> Would it be an acceptable/interesting project to bring the ScholarLY
>> library to a finished state and (optionally) integrate it with
>> LilyPond?
> Personally I don't think "integrating ScholarLY" with LilyPond is the
> rig
Urs Liska writes:
> Would it be an acceptable/interesting project to bring the ScholarLY
> library to a finished state and (optionally) integrate it with
> LilyPond?
Personally I don't think "integrating ScholarLY" with LilyPond is the
right course: it is a rather special-purpose case. I think
Would it be an acceptable/interesting project to bring the ScholarLY
library to a finished state and (optionally) integrate it with LilyPond?
As far as I'm concerned and considering the feedback from users this
approach to annotating items in the score is very fruitful. However,
there are so many
Hi John,
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:01 PM, John Gourlay wrote:
>
> I’ve started working on incorporating the musicxml2ly enhancements from
> Philomelos into LilyPond.
Glad to hear it!
> Is this what you’re referring to when you say “there’s still work to do on
> MusicXML import/export”?
Ah, no
Paul,
I’ve started working on incorporating the musicxml2ly enhancements from
Philomelos into LilyPond. Is this what you’re referring to when you say
“there’s still work to do on MusicXML import/export”? I don’t have a patch to
submit yet, but should I put an entry in the SourceForge LilyIssues
Paul Morris writes:
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>> But I think *now* is the time to start thinking about possible projects
>> for this instead of waiting for some students to show up out of the blue.
>>
>> What would be a suitable approach?
>>
>> * Thinking about a n
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
>
> But I think *now* is the time to start thinking about possible projects
> for this instead of waiting for some students to show up out of the blue.
>
> What would be a suitable approach?
>
> * Thinking about a number of tasks that
>- wou
20 matches
Mail list logo
