Hi Carl, Neil,
I'm quite happy to re-think the proposal if what I have in mind
contravenes existing design architecture.
Put it down to relative inexperience and the fact I don't get
opportunity to work on lilly as often as I'd like.
Anyhow, here are some of the reasons why I'd like to do som
On 9/19/09 7:27 AM, "Ian Hulin" wrote:
> Hi Carl, Neil,
>
> I'm quite happy to re-think the proposal if what I have in mind contravenes
> existing design architecture.
> Put it down to relative inexperience and the fact I don't get opportunity to
> work on lilly as often as I'd like.
>
> Any
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
> basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
> else[2] is GPLv2.
>
> [1] it would be very useful if somebody could create an example to
> replac
Graham Percival wrote:
> Bugger the GNU project guidelines. They're not the be-all and
> end-all of good project mangement. In many ways, they're pure
> rubbish. Toodle-pip, cheers, and all that.
>
> (I'm trying to be more British... I was really surprised at the
> use of "cheers" here. It's a
Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 04:32:16PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> I think this is a fairly uncontroversial addition (it's just stating in
>> each file what's already true) so I'm submitting these patches now
>> rather than later.
>
> For the benefit of the mailist archiv
The only thing I can tell is that you need to remove the part about
needing python, since (as the doc says) Python is now bundled.
Other than that, the rest looks accurate and complete to me.
-Travis
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 04:42:43PM -0
Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 06:56 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> Some time later today (knock on wood) I'll make the official
> 2.13.4 release. This will happen whenever I manage to solve or
> bludgeon all the issues involved in building GUB on my university
> machine. As such,
> - I'm n
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:19:20PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
> > basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
> > else[2] is GPLv2.
>
> Wha
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:34:41PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 06:56 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Some time later today (knock on wood) I'll make the official
> > 2.13.4 release. This will happen whenever I manage to solve or
> > bludgeon all the issues
I'll volunteer for helping regtest.
You just look at two output images and compare them, right? Any
difference, the test fails?
-Travis
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:34:41PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
>> Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 06
Graham Percival wrote:
> There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
> people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
> of people who say "hey, I want to help out" never do anything!).
> And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots
> of
In message <4ab5056a.9010...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
[1] Where the licensing issue might be important is this: what if
someone forks Lilypond and adds a bunch of their own code with a
different but compatible license statement -- like GPLv2+? It helps
clarify the situation if each
In message <1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost>, John Mandereau
writes
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
[1] it w
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 19:45 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman a
écrit :
> The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
> The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
> whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
> snip
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
> tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
> there'd be no problems with people extracting it for any CC stuff.
> ... err wait, are we talking ab
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
> The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
> whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
> snippet is too small to qualify for cop
2009/9/19 John Mandereau :
> Is it worth I generate a regtest comparison manually (without gub, doing
> git checkout release/2.12.3-0;make test-baseline;
> git checkout release/2.12.4-1;make check) and upload it somewhere.
If it's not too much trouble for you to do this, John, I'd be
interested t
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 21:50 +0100, Neil Puttock a écrit :
> If it's not too much trouble for you to do this, John, I'd be
> interested to know whether you can get it too work; I've been trying
> without success over the last few weeks to do comparisons between
> various 2.12 & 2.13 release
2009/9/19 John Mandereau :
> Ugh, this is weird. I'll try comparing 2.12 and master, and 2.13.3 and
> master.
Cheers.
I don't know whether it's significant, but I've found it's easy to
tell when the testing's gone wrong, since the job forking message has
too few jobs (on a good day, it usually
2009/9/14 Michael Käppler :
> Hmm, I can't reproduce this here. Can you try again and send me an png if it
> still fails?
It's still pretty bad; see the attached image.
Regards,
Neil
<>___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists
In message <4ab53f73.1080...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make th
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Anthony W. Youngman
wrote:
> (I don't know, but there's been a fair bit of discussion, on and off, on
> debian legal as to whether it is even *possible* for some people to consign
> their work to the public domain - the *law* apparently says they *can't*)
Hence t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:45:46 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost>, John Mandereau
> >On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
>
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> > If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd
> > suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which
> > lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn'
> Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond
> can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with
> GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we
> have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising
> clause, thus incompatible wi
25 matches
Mail list logo
