On 9 May 2010 02:50, Mark Polesky wrote:
> 5) post the patch here for approval
Sorry, I missed this bit. The patch must've fallen foul of GNU's file
size restrictions.
Your installed convert-ly isn't up to date:
-\version "2.13.20"
+\version "2.13.18"
I'll push a fix soon.
Cheers,
Neil
__
On 9 May 2010 15:12, Graham Percival wrote:
> Umm...
> git grep "RemoveEmptyStaffContext" | wc
> 115 441 10418
> git grep "RemoveEmptyStaves" | wc
> 20 82 1428
>
> Also, no mention of this in Changes.
I guess Reinhold wanted to make the change as unobtrusive as possible,
at
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 02:50, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> 1) commit the attached patch
>
> LGTM, apart from this:
>
> + \RemoveEmptyStaffContext
>
> New syntax:
>
> \Staff
> \RemoveEmptyStaves
Umm...
git grep "RemoveEmptyStaffContext" | wc
115
On 9 May 2010 02:50, Mark Polesky wrote:
> 1) commit the attached patch
LGTM, apart from this:
+ \RemoveEmptyStaffContext
New syntax:
\Staff
\RemoveEmptyStaves
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.
Mark Polesky wrote wrote Sunday, May 09, 2010 2:50 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
I suggest you dump this as a template in A.4 for now.
Let me make sure I'm doing this right.
1) commit the attached patch
2) run scripts/auxiliar/makelsr.py
3) commit that result as "Doc: Update LSR."
4) make doc (
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I suggest you dump this as a template in A.4 for now.
Let me make sure I'm doing this right.
1) commit the attached patch
2) run scripts/auxiliar/makelsr.py
3) commit that result as "Doc: Update LSR."
4) make doc (compiles cleanly)
5) post the patch here for approval
6) pu
Mark Polesky wrote Saturday, May 08, 2010 3:01 AM
*** This refers to LM 3.2.3 "Voices and vocals" ***
Trevor Daniels wrote:
I put this in after several questions on -user about how
this should be done, but I wasn't very happy with it. If
you can come up with a better way of coding a solo ve
*** This refers to LM 3.2.3 "Voices and vocals" ***
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I put this in after several questions on -user about how
> this should be done, but I wasn't very happy with it. If
> you can come up with a better way of coding a solo verse
> going into a two-part refain let's change it
