"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> There are two critical issues that we're going to have to start
> seriously thinking about now if 2.18 is going to happen anytime soon:
>
> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2733
>
> I'm not comfortable marking this critical: not because it is no
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2656
>>
>> This is really bad. I agree that it is critical. I unfortunately
>> have no way to test this, but do people have an ETA for fixing this?
>> If not, it will hold 2.18 up for
On 27 mars 2013, at 07:54, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2656
>>
>> This is really bad. I agree that it is critical. I unfortunately
>> have no way to test this, but do people have an ETA for fixing this?
>> If not, it will hold 2.18 up for a
> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2656
>
> This is really bad. I agree that it is critical. I unfortunately
> have no way to test this, but do people have an ETA for fixing this?
> If not, it will hold 2.18 up for a long time, in which it may be
> worth pushing the translate
Thanks for all answers.
On 8 January 2012 23:47, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> W dniu 8 stycznia 2012 10:11 użytkownik James napisał:
> > Start by looking here:
> >
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=&sort=priority&colspec=ID&x=type&y=priority&mode=grid&cells=tiles
>
> Umm, guys,
Janek Warchoł writes:
> According to our motto the aim of LilyPond is "music engraving to
> everyone" - i'd say it's a very good goal. It would mean that a
> person with average computer skills (like navigating a web browser and
> using word processor) should be able to create very good engravin
W dniu 8 stycznia 2012 02:54 użytkownik Graham Percival
napisał:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 01:52:41AM +0100, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
>> * Let's assume that I would like to help in developing Lilypond, but
>>I don't have my own idea, what part of it I could improve. What
>>wou
On Jan 8, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 01:52:41AM +0100, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
>>
>> Are there some guidelines how to write new code to work in the same
>> manner as the already written code?
>
> We have a contributor's guide. It is not complete, but t
Hello,
2012/1/8 Łukasz Czerwiński :
> What's the aim of Lilypond?
err..
"LilyPond is a music engraving program, devoted to producing the
highest-quality sheet music possible. It brings the aesthetics of
traditionally engraved music to computer printouts."
> And why isn't it competing with Fina
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 01:52:41AM +0100, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
>As for all the emails that were written it the last two days, I believe
>that a sort of coordination is needed in each project.
We have the amount of coordination that we have chosen.
> * Let's assume that I would li
First of all I would like to apologize for misjudging Lilypond project.
As for all the emails that were written it the last two days, I believe
that a sort of coordination is needed in each project. Maybe for some of
them there must be one boss with many programmers and designers, while for
other
David,
2012/1/7 David Kastrup :
> I really don't quite get the point of complaining that I provide
> alternative ways of accessing functionality. Nobody forces you to make
> use of them.
2012/1/7 David Kastrup :
> In the light of the focus of the work I have been doing for several
> months, I ha
Janek Warchoł writes:
> What i want to say is, i'm afraid you might have forgotten how it
> feels to be a non-programmer. It's not a joke that for average person
> that wants to produce some notation, it's hard enough to use text
> input.
In the light of the focus of the work I have been doing
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2012/1/5 David Kastrup :
>>
>> Janek Warchoł writes:
>>
>>> 2012/1/4 David Kastrup :
\layout {
\layout-from { \compressFullBarRests
\override Score.SpacingSpanner #'common-shortest-duration =
#(ly:make-moment 6 10)
}
etc...
2012/1/5 David Kastrup :
>
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> 2012/1/4 David Kastrup :
>>> \layout {
>>> \layout-from { \compressFullBarRests
>>> \override Score.SpacingSpanner #'common-shortest-duration =
>>> #(ly:make-moment 6 10)
>>> }
>>> etc...
>>> }
>>
>> ok... However - i'm very so
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:14 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>>>
Correct me if i'm wrong, but my impression is that
there is no particular direction in which we are goin
On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:14 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>>
>>> Correct me if i'm wrong, but my impression is that
>>> there is no particular direction in which we are going.
>>
>> I'm sure that other people have t
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>
>> Correct me if i'm wrong, but my impression is that
>> there is no particular direction in which we are going.
>
> I'm sure that other people have their pet projects as well. The
> ensemble of these projects i
On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but my impression is that
> there is no particular direction in which we are going.
>
I think that it is very difficult to set these goals because different things
interest different people. I know that Bertrand and I
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2012/1/4 David Kastrup :
\settingsFrom is actually returning a Scheme expression for \with to
use. It makes things rather simpler than more complex, even though it
constitutes a Scheme expression.
>>>
>>> Um... i would really love to be able to type
>>> \l
Adding Luke to recipients again... (please remember to include him as
he's not signed to our mailing lists),
2012/1/4 David Kastrup :
> Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
>> Regarding all those fragments of Janek's and David's emails: For some time
>> I have been observing how bug are being fixed in Lily
2012/1/4 David Kastrup :
>>> \settingsFrom is actually returning a Scheme expression for \with to
>>> use. It makes things rather simpler than more complex, even though it
>>> constitutes a Scheme expression.
>>
>> Um... i would really love to be able to type
>> \layout {
>> \compressFullBar
2012/1/4 James :
> hello,
>
> On 3 Jan 2012, at 22:26, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> I might have given you a wrong impression, i don't think its really
>> that bad. There is some teamwork, but no leader indeed.
>
> to use an English expression ... poppycock!
>
> Janek you may have not noticed that the
David Kastrup writes:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>>> \layout {
>>> \context {
>>> \Score
>>> \with \settingsFrom { \compressFullBarRests }
>>> }
>>> \context {
>>> \Staff
>>> \with \settingsFrom { \accidentalStyle modern }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> \end{lilypond}
>>>
Łukasz Czerwiński writes:
> On 3 January 2012 21:47, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>
>>
>> > I am a TeX specialist, system programmer, Emacs specialist, the GNU
>> > maintainer (and a rather pitiful one) for AUCTeX (lytex and itexi
>> > anybody? preview-latex for Lilypond?)
>
> Mmm... Preview for Lilypon
On 3 January 2012 21:47, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>
> > I am a TeX specialist, system programmer, Emacs specialist, the GNU
> > maintainer (and a rather pitiful one) for AUCTeX (lytex and itexi
> > anybody? preview-latex for Lilypond?)
Mmm... Preview for Lilypond? Sounds like a good start for a real
Janek Warchoł writes:
>> \layout {
>> \context {
>> \Score
>> \with \settingsFrom { \compressFullBarRests }
>> }
>> \context {
>> \Staff
>> \with \settingsFrom { \accidentalStyle modern }
>> }
>> }
>> }
>> \end{lilypond}
>>
>> \ph is a music function written in S
hello,
On 3 Jan 2012, at 22:26, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> nice to see you joining the discussion :)
>
> W dniu 3 stycznia 2012 23:06 użytkownik Łukasz Czerwiński
> napisał:
>>> That's like + from me!
>>> In general, i agree that we should think in a more 'release-oriented'
>>> w
Hi Luke,
nice to see you joining the discussion :)
W dniu 3 stycznia 2012 23:06 użytkownik Łukasz Czerwiński
napisał:
>> That's like + from me!
>> In general, i agree that we should think in a more 'release-oriented'
>> way ("last stable release was half a year ago, so we should make
>> anot
2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> 2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
>
>>> LilyPond needs to get into a state where, say, half the
>>> engravers are written and maintained in Scheme. And by "Scheme" I don't
>>> mean "Scheme at the level Nicolas can barely handle" but "Scheme a
>>> Fortr
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
>> LilyPond needs to get into a state where, say, half the
>> engravers are written and maintained in Scheme. And by "Scheme" I don't
>> mean "Scheme at the level Nicolas can barely handle" but "Scheme a
>> Fortran programmer would not have all t
Graham Percival writes:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:57:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>> > My question to David, because I am not getting where the 'ire' is
>> > coming from, why do you care if we release dev after dev release vs
>> > stable?
>
> Yeah, especially since Ca
Hello,
On 3 January 2012 20:49, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:57:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>> > My question to David, because I am not getting where the 'ire' is
>> > coming from, why do you care if we release dev after dev release vs
>> > stable?
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:57:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> James writes:
>
> > My question to David, because I am not getting where the 'ire' is
> > coming from, why do you care if we release dev after dev release vs
> > stable?
Yeah, especially since Carl was *already* making good progres
2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> 2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
>>> The Learning Guide and the Notation Guide need a complete rereading and
>>> reorganization, and it is not like the Extending Guide is in
>>> significantly better shape.
>>
>> I'd like to fix them too, but i don't ha
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
>> The Learning Guide and the Notation Guide need a complete rereading and
>> reorganization, and it is not like the Extending Guide is in
>> significantly better shape.
>
> I'd like to fix them too, but i don't have time for everything i want
> :(
2012/1/3 Graham Percival :
> It so happens that none of these Critical issues are really
> fixable by reverting a single commit.
>
> [...]
ok, thanks for this explanation!
>> Is finding them an easy (no knowledge
>> needed, a complete set of dumbed-down instructions can be given) task
>> that can
James writes:
> Hello,
>
> On 3 January 2012 12:53, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
many operating sy
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
>>> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
>>> many operating systems is likely to fall in the class "too little,
>>> to
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> One in-the-middle approach is to check out package managers that are
> offering LilyPond releases. I know, for example, that brew offers a
> version of LilyPond on Mac OS X. If we provide a list of package
> managers and how-tos for the techno-phobic, that may
Hello,
On 3 January 2012 12:53, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
>>> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
>>> many operating systems is likely to fall i
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
>> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
>> many operating systems is likely to fall in the class "too little,
>> too late".
>
> I second David. Given that we develop within a GNU
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
>> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
>> many operating systems is likely to fall in the class "too little,
>> too late".
>
> I second David. Giv
On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
>> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
>> many operating systems is likely to fall in the class "too little,
>> too late".
>
> I second David. Give
> If we refuse thinking about stable releases by taking GUB as an
> excuse, the grand next stable release that will benefit users of
> many operating systems is likely to fall in the class "too little,
> too late".
I second David. Given that we develop within a GNU environment, bugs
specific to
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
No. I have an Ubuntu VM which I use for quick experiments and a very
fast Ubuntu PC which I use for full builds. But I support lilypond
because I _use_ it for typesetting music on a _Windows_ machine. Take
away that abilit
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: critical issues
>
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>>> From: "David Kastrup"
>>> To:
>&
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: critical issues
"Phil Holmes" writes:
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
There is a _reason_ the remaining OSX and Windows based developers
a
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To:
>
>> There is a _reason_ the remaining OSX and Windows based developers
>> are doing (definitely important) documentation and web site work.
>> They are to a large degree locked out and dependent on support from
>> surplus GNU/Linux-based deve
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: critical issues
Graham Percival writes:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:03:08AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival writes:
> We could certainly consider droppin
Graham Percival writes:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:03:08AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > We could certainly consider dropping support for OSX or windows.
>>
>> That sort of token solidarity is actually counterproductive:
>> if you believe that non-releases le
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 06:24:19AM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> By the way, do we have a policy about regressions?
Yes, they're bad? :)
> I remember that
> reverting bad commits was discussed in the past, and i'm quite for
> this solution.
> I don't see information about which commits caused ou
(sorry for double-post)
2012/1/2 Graham Percival :
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>> > If you are aware of any other issues which fall under the
>> > definition (i.e. a reproducible failure to build lilypond from
>> > scratch,
>>
>> On
2012/1/3 David Kastrup :
> I am afraid that we are painting ourselves into a corner. And I don't
> think that we are doing ourselves a favor by defining "stable" as "a
> random moment when somebody managed to get GUB to run for Windows and
> OSX". We should define "stable" based on the stability
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:03:08AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > We could certainly consider dropping support for OSX or windows.
>
> That sort of token solidarity is actually counterproductive:
> if you believe that non-releases lead to non-users,
yes
> and you t
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on
>> > lilypond-devel. A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst
>> > those emails, but we simply cannot
2012/1/2 Graham Percival :
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on
>> > lilypond-devel. A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst
>> > those emails, but we simply cannot
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on
> > lilypond-devel. A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst
> > those emails, but we simply cannot afford to revisit every policy
>
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:59:47PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> I see the following critical issues:
> -snip-
>>
>> There is, actually, a wagonload of other changes underfoot that does not
>> appear quite compatible with releasing a version called "stable" to me.
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:59:47PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I see the following critical issues:
-snip-
>
> There is, actually, a wagonload of other changes underfoot that does not
> appear quite compatible with releasing a version called "stable" to me.
> It seems strange to me that the _
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:29:11AM -0500, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> The Lilypond project has a very specific set of objectives. There
> is a defined set of procedures, a roadmap, a set of criteria of
> what is acceptable to go into the codebase, etc.
This is true of any (well-organized) project.
On 11-01-01 03:24 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
or an
art history / research grant. I think the latter is more
likely... for example, if somebody got a grant to typeset 17th
century Norweigan folk songs, and decided to use lilypond, and
spent x% of the grant towards "improving community-oriented to
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 01:14:19PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> version, but this looks fine." My intention was that, even if it
> was a minor bug, then someone had put work in recently to fix it.
> If someone else has just unpicked that, then this a Bad Thing and
> should be corrected.
I don't wa
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: critical issues
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
"
Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 03:15:22AM +, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> > "
> > Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below)
> > against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
> > developed for this versio
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:37:35PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> "
> Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below)
> against a previous stable version or a regression against a fix
> developed for this version. This does not apply where the
> "regression" occurred because a feature
[snip long-ish discussion]
OK, I think we reached a conclusion on this and so would like to make a
patch. I propose:
"
Priority-Critical: LilyPond segfaults, a regression (see below) against a
previous stable version or a regression against a fix developed for this
version. This does not ap
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 01:06:04PM +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:
> Graham:
> > Of course, writing artistic and research grants is a non-trivial
> > amount of work, and it's hardly guaranteed to have any results.
> > But I think that with the right angle -- be that "collaborative
> > folk music archival
Graham:
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 09:10:49AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
...
> > But maybe there is a group of LilyPond philanthropists who can afford
> > this and are willing to do so...
> I'm not optimistic about that; I think a more realistic
> opportunity would be to get some grant money from
Graham Percival writes:
> In my idle moments, I like to discourage myself by trying to
> figure out how long it would take to achieve something
> "reasonable" for users. Let's play this game now, and start
> making some unrealistic-but-just-possible assumptions:
> 1. "reasonable" means 100 bugs.
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:31:23 -0800, Trevor Daniels
> wrote:
>> ... the concern I had was this. Quite a lot of the
>> documentation was written, not by inspecting the code
>> to see what was intended, but by experimenting and
>> writing up what was found. I certainly wor
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 09:39:37AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > I'm not optimistic about that; I think a more realistic opportunity
> > would be to get some grant money from some artistic organization.
>
> Mhmm. `Programming' in its broadest sense is research, thus getting
> grants limits
2011/1/1 Werner LEMBERG :
> What we would need is a payed full-time developer. However, this is
> expensive. Assuming that the programmer has a family with children,
> an appartment, etc., and to provide a reasonably good living for him
> or her, this would be about 3000 Euros a month here in Aus
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, January 01, 2011 7:16 AM
Nope, for precisely the reason you gave earlier: our documentation
generally has zero input from programmers, so it's not at all a
good representation of "what's intended".
We have a set of "intended to be working" examples. They're
ca
> I'm not optimistic about that; I think a more realistic opportunity
> would be to get some grant money from some artistic organization.
Mhmm. `Programming' in its broadest sense is research, thus getting
grants limits the number of persons enormously. However, the number
of music researchers
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 09:10:49AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> What we would need is a payed full-time developer.
That could help. Or at least having a sponsorship page up, which
brings us back to the GOP policy list and the current decision not
to begin discussing those until we've gotten 2.1
> What we would need is a payed full-time developer.
I have forgotten to say that such a developer needs certain skills in
addition to C++ and Scheme, namely being a musician...
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http:/
> Look, we simply *cannot* offer users anything that would be
> "reasonable" by most standards. We have "highly embarrassing" bugs
> from 2006 that we're not even *pretending* to be working on. We've
> been in "release crunch" mode for at least six months. The only
> glimmer of hope on the horiz
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 12:31:23AM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Friday, December 31, 2010 11:20 PM
>
> >However, lilypond never intentionally tried to
> >avoid those objects colliding -- in fact, intentionally avoiding
> >this collision would require a fair chunk of extr
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:31:23 -0800, Trevor Daniels
wrote:
... the concern I had was this. Quite a lot of the
documentation was written, not by inspecting the code
to see what was intended, but by experimenting and
writing up what was found. I certainly worked that
way, and I think Mark and Ke
Graham Percival wrote Friday, December 31, 2010 11:20 PM
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:43:36PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
> >
> > I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if
> > something
>
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:43:36PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> > Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
> > >
> > > I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if something
> > > only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
> >
> > I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if something
> > only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of bugs, then
> > "breaking" that should not be a Critical bug.
>
> I'm
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:56 AM
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:32:56PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
From: "Carl Sorensen"
>On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival"
> wrote:
>
>The difference between Phil's version and the previous version
>is
>
>"Something that worked as i
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:32:56PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> From: "Carl Sorensen"
> >On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> >
> >The difference between Phil's version and the previous version is
> >
> >"Something that worked as it should in a previous version, and now doesn't
> >work.
Am Mittwoch, 29. Dezember 2010, um 04:57:47 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> > In the case of #3, if it's not actually a problem, then when a
> > programmer takes a look at the issue, they can quickly mark it as
> > an "invalid" report. I agree that it woul
On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:24:32PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>>
>> I think one of these was mine. This is the thing I want to discuss
>> before creating a patch. I think the real problem
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:24:32PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
> >Ironically, although the current printed policy seems to be too
> >inclusive for Critical issues, my main concern is that bug squad
> >members are classifying stuff as High instead
And here comes the test-baseline file.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
<>___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
-
This is a multipart MIME message.
Karl Hammar:
> Carl Sorensen:
> ...
> > I've posted a patch on Rietveld. Can you do the
> > regression test?
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/1195044
>
> After a make test-redo I get:
>
> . the "mandatory" output-distance.
> . a diff of tree.gittext, showing
On 5/15/10 1:12 AM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen:
> ...
>> I've posted a patch on Rietveld. Can you do the
>> regression test?
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1195044
>
> After a make test-redo I get:
>
> . the "mandatory" output-distance.
> . a diff of tree.gittext, showing Carls
Carl Sorensen:
...
> I've posted a patch on Rietveld. Can you do the
> regression test?
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1195044
After a make test-redo I get:
. the "mandatory" output-distance.
. a diff of tree.gittext, showing Carls patch
. 314 below threshold
. 2062 unchanged
>From this I assu
On 5/14/10 8:18 AM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen:
>> On 5/14/10 7:01 AM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
>>> Carl Sorensen:
> ...
>> You also need to redefine the 'stencil for laissez-vibrez tie in
>> scm/define-grobs.scm.
> ...
>
> I can help with doning the regression test. Second-guessing wh
Carl Sorensen:
> On 5/14/10 7:01 AM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> > Carl Sorensen:
...
> You also need to redefine the 'stencil for laissez-vibrez tie in
> scm/define-grobs.scm.
...
I can help with doning the regression test. Second-guessing what
Niels patch was about was not included in that offer.
On 5/14/10 7:01 AM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen:
>> On 5/13/10 1:11 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> ...
>> make test-baseline
> ...
>> make check
> ...
>
> Ok, done that.
>
> With the guidance from http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=881:
>
> I can't explain why, but m
Carl Sorensen:
> On 5/13/10 1:11 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
...
> make test-baseline
...
> make check
...
Ok, done that.
With the guidance from http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=881:
I can't explain why, but making the print function pure by redefining
ly:tie::print
just for
Joe Neeman schrieb:
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 22:14 +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
Issue 1080: Regression: bar lines in double bar are positioned too
close together
"pnorcks" mentions commit 27a4d9354effb09c696925881ec4df007da8a0db
as a possible cause. Reverting part of that commit:
gives me the atta
On 5/13/10 2:31 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen:
>> On 5/13/10 2:08 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> ...
>>> In http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1080 there is a
>>> grace-start-good.png .
> ...
>> IIUC, Neil's patch was already demonstrated to meet issue 1. But issue 2
>
Carl Sorensen:
> On 5/13/10 2:08 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
...
> > In http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1080 there is a
> > grace-start-good.png .
...
> IIUC, Neil's patch was already demonstrated to meet issue 1. But issue 2
> was not yet checked.
Are you mixing this up with
On 5/13/10 2:08 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen:
>> On 5/13/10 1:11 PM, "Karl Hammar" wrote:
> ...
>>> But if I already have a known good result from the code tracker,
>>> how do I compare it with the new result?
>>
>> What do you mean by "if I already have a known good result from the
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
