Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> This is a serious question I'd like to ask you. If you were the
>>> king of LilyPond, what would you establish as the workflow? I'd
>>> really like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> I'd not prohibit any work flow that can be maintained with
>> single-line git commands. Th
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to start it right from the first.
I would agree with this. In fact I put b
i just notice that from page 365-369 the resulting systems + staffs are
there, but the code is missing!
in the corresponding HTML doc you can click on the image and the code
displays.
cheers!
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/missing-code-in-PDf-doc-2.13-NR-4.4.3-Explicit-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 09:18:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Not
> everybody has access to a git server of his own, so a standard hosting
> solution would certainly be welcome.
Ever heard of repo.or.cz??? (Of course, you need to create an account ther
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 09:18:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Not
>> everybody has access to a git server of his own, so a standard hosting
>> solution would certainly be welcome.
>
> Ever heard of repo.or.cz??? (Of course, you need to create an account there,
> too.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 10:51:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Contained patch sets can be reasonably well exchanged by mail/mailing
> list.
My experience with this is that patches sent by mail will be forgotten the
next day. So, either you are lucky to
Hello,
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to start it right from the first.
I would ag
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 10:51:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Contained patch sets can be reasonably well exchanged by mail/mailing
>> list.
>
> My experience with this is that patches sent by mail will be forgotten the
> next day. So, either you are lucky to get a res
For fixing the figured bass alignment (i.e. the <4> <6 4> case with extenders
turned onn), I have a problem with the vertical alignment:
<8 6 4> <8 5 3>
Should appear as
8
6 5
4 3
I'm adding the elements to the BassFigureAlignment so that its elements list
is:
8 (spanner over both time
On 5/4/10 12:46 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>
>> This is a serious question I'd like to ask you. If you were the king
>> of LilyPond, what would you establish as the workflow? I'd really
>> like to hear your opinion.
>
> I'd not prohibit any work flow that can be
On 5/4/10 12:58 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote:
>
>
>>> This is a serious question I'd like to ask you. If you were the
>>> king of LilyPond, what would you establish as the workflow? I'd
>>> really like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> I'd not prohibit any work flow that can be maintained with
>>
Carl Sorensen writes:
> I like the thought of just switching to another developer's branch to
> review, instead of creating my own branch, applying the patch, and
> then testing.
Well, unless the patch fails, there is not much of a difference. For
divergent development, however, it might help t
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 5/4/10 12:46 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>>
>>> This is a serious question I'd like to ask you. If you were the king
>>> of LilyPond, what would you establish as the workflow? I'd really
>>> like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> I'd not pr
James Lowe wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:19 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
> least as important as a \version statement, which is
> mentioned there.
I think a better place would be in a new @subsection at the
top of 2.1 "Single staff notat
15 matches
Mail list logo
