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
Patching with [3] (see [2]) still gives something (see attachment)
more like rest-2.12.png in [1], i.e. it was not fixed.
The comment for the fix:
Allow user override of left/right spacing of full-bar rests relative
to barlines or prefatory material.
implies that one has to do an override. T
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
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 15 May 2010 09:58, Karl Hammar wrote:
> Patching with [3] (see [2]) still gives something (see attachment)
> more like rest-2.12.png in [1], i.e. it was not fixed.
You must've done something wrong when applying the patch/rebuilding.
I wouldn't post a patch on Rietveld without first confirming
Neil Puttock:
> On 15 May 2010 09:58, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > Patching with [3] (see [2]) still gives something (see attachment)
> > more like rest-2.12.png in [1], i.e. it was not fixed.
>
> You must've done something wrong when applying the patch/rebuilding.
>
> I wouldn't post a patch on Rietv
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:31:40AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
> Just to prevent that my tiny advances on #1036 get lost, here are my
> random notes on the issue. Those notes are very messed but after a
> rest my head will surely understand certain things a bit more clearly.
>
> http://wiki.lily
On 15 May 2010 14:37, Karl Hammar wrote:
> git-pull
> wget http://codereview.appspot.com/download/issue931041_1.diff
> patch -p1 < issue931041_1.diff --dry-run
> patch -p1 < issue931041_1.diff
> make > log 2>&1; make test-redo >> log 2>&1
I very rarely use `make test-redo'.
I basically do what
Am Samstag, 15. Mai 2010, um 14:19:43 schrieben Sie:
> On 14 May 2010 18:06, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > It's still on my list of things to do should I ever get enough time,
> > though. (Which is probably never, so I would encourage everyone to look
> > at this bug...)
>
> This looks like a sim
On 15 May 2010 16:50, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Actually, I never liked the hack to set 'dash-period to a negative value.
I agree.
> To me it would seem much more natural to use the 'style property, i.e.
>
> \override DynamicTextSpanner #'style = #'none
>
> Of course, that would need to be
2010/5/15 Neil Puttock :
> This looks like a similar problem to issue 305. It would be trivial
> to enhance the patch I posted for this to break the alignment spanner
> if the engraver acknowledges a DynamicTextSpanner and 'dash-period is
> negative.
Great news!
(finally an issue I complain abou
Hi all,
We have these blocks in our C++ code base:
$ git grep -A 5 MODULE_GC_KLUDGE
lily/include/ly-module.hh:#define MODULE_GC_KLUDGE
lily/include/ly-module.hh-
lily/include/ly-module.hh-#endif /* LY_MODULE_HH */
lily/include/ly-module.hh-
--
lily/ly-module.cc:#ifdef MODULE_GC_KLUDGE
lily/ly-modu
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
> As I understand it, these are to get round problems with Guile pre V1.8,7,
> which we no longer support. Is it now safe to delete this code?
According to configure.in, we only require guile 1.8.2 or higher.
Should that be bumped?
My main syst
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
>> As I understand it, these are to get round problems with Guile pre V1.8,7,
>> which we no longer support. Is it now safe to delete this code?
>
> According to configure.in, we only req
Another patch set has been made that removes the order restrictions on
the markup function arguments and consequently throws out all the code
for which change suggestions or commenting or refactoring requests have
been made.
Most changes in the patch set provide a significant reduction in (quite
Hello,
On 15 May 2010, at 22:22, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
As I understand it, these are to get round problems with Guile pre
V1.8,7,
which we no longer support. Is it now safe to delete this code?
According to configure.in, we only require
Is \newSpacingSection only supposed to be used at the
beginning of measures? If I use it in the middle of a
measure, I get a huge gap that I can't seem to remove.
- Mark
* * * * * * * * * *
\version "2.13.22"
\layout {
ragged-right = ##f
}
\relative c'' {
c4 c c c |
c4 \newSpacingSectio
17 matches
Mail list logo
