Re: modifying default behaviour of tremolo slashes (issue4636081)

http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/diff/10001/lily/stem-tremolo.cc File lily/stem-tremolo.cc (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/diff/10001/lily/stem-tremolo.cc#newcode93 lily/stem-tremolo.cc:93: style = ly_symbol2scm ("constant"); On 2011/07/23 19:58:19, Janek Warchol wrote: On 2

Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

2011/7/24 : > I don't mind if we have another obscure entry in the detail list > currently.  If your patches fixes the problem reliably, this would be a > great immediate help. > > IMHO, at some point in the hopefully not too distant future, the whole > handling of slurs and ties must be re-examin

Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

> I'm currently preparing an extensive report on the matter of ties. > I estimate that 30% of work is done. This is great news! Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Produces better error messages when programmers forget to document a property. (issue4801045)

On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:05 AM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: > Can you give me an idea what his does and how to test this or what I am > going to see as someone who runs a lot of make/reg tests? > Try adding an undocumented property to an interface (i.e. add "foo" to the Stem interface) and then run

Re: Produces better error messages when programmers forget to document a property. (issue4801045)

On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Neil Puttock wrote: > On 23 July 2011 23:05, wrote: >> Can you give me an idea what his does and how to test this or what I am >> going to see as someone who runs a lot of make/reg tests? > > If somebody forgets to document a new property (in > scm/define-grob-prop

Re: Fix for Issue 620. (issue4814041)

On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:56 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4814041/diff/6001/scm/define-grob-properties.scm > File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4814041/diff/6001/scm/define-grob-properties.scm#newcode1000 > scm/define-g

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

- Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Phil Holmes" Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:34 PM Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 03:07:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: If you have changed only on

Re: Makes parameters for hairpin rotation available in Scheme (issue4809051)

Make passes but reg test check fails see my comment: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=36#c5 http://codereview.appspot.com/4809051/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypon

Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

Make passes and reg tests look pretty good too See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=163#c12 for output http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi

Re: Fix 1214: cueDuring and quoteDuring should also quote voices that create subvoices (issue4816044)

make passes and reg test check is ok. http://codereview.appspot.com/4816044/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Add Notation appendix for context mod identifiers. (issue4794057)

Passes make and reg tests. James http://codereview.appspot.com/4794057/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:49 AM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote: > Make passes and reg tests look pretty good too > > See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=163#c12 > > for output > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048/ Thanks James! A lot of the changes are ugly (there are only a co

Re: modifying default behaviour of tremolo slashes (issue4636081)

makes fine. No reg test differences now. http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

- Original Message - From: "Phil Holmes" To: "Graham Percival" ; "Trevor Daniels" Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:03 AM Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Phil Holmes"

Re: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

David Kastrup writes: > >> I put the current state up on Rietveld at >> http://codereview.appspot.com/4811047> >> >> I don't have a usage example to go with the patch though. If somebody >> has something nice to offer... > > Again: usage example would be welcome. After extensively discussing th

Re: Fixes note column skylines by adding a stem tremolo pure height function. (issue4754054)

Passes make and reg tests show some differences - nothing significantly wrong see http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1768#c6 for screenshots (couldn't see where mikes attached differences were - so redid them again myself for the tracker in case people were not seeing what had c

RE: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

Mike From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of m...@apollinemike.com [m...@apollinemike.com] Sent: 24 July 2011 10:55 To: mts...@gmail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com; l

RE: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

Hello, From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of David Kastrup [d...@gnu.org] Sent: 24 July 2011 12:05 To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Review music functions w

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

Hi Trevor, On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM > > >> 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels : >>> >>> If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make >>> as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing. >>> So you nee

Re: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

James Lowe writes: > Hello, > > From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org > [lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of > David Kastrup [d...@gnu.org] > Sent: 24 July 2011 12:05 > To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Su

Re: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, James Lowe wrote: > David Kastrup writes: >> After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and >> variants with myself... > > I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link? I think we ought to have a private mailing list for su

Re: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

>>> After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and >>> variants with myself... >> >> I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link? > > I think we ought to have a private mailing list for such discussions. > > Discussions that take place in one's mind are ju

Re: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

Werner LEMBERG writes: After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and variants with myself... >>> >>> I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link? >> >> I think we ought to have a private mailing list for such discussions. >> >> Discussions tha

Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

New patchset uploaded with minor tweaks. I still need to think about a better way to implement the change in score_edges. The idea is that if there is a large jump right at the beginning or end of the stem, we should favor attachments points that are closer to the Y-position of the second note-co

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

- Original Message - From: "Ian Hulin" To: Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) Hi Trevor, On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote: Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM 2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels : I

Sketch for fix of issue 307 (issue4813048)

Reviewers: , Message: Please don't run regtests yet on this patch - it is up to see if people are OK with this approach. It is a brute-force approach that will slow down lilypond for slurs that have extra-object-collisions, but I think it'll cover the grand majority of cases. Description: Sketc

patches and regtest checking

tl;dr: if James does a regtest check of your patch and sees problems, you should be ashamed. In the past few weeks, we've had a fantastic deluge of patches. Fantastic deluge is fantastic. However, our ratio of regtest-passing-patches vs. problem-patches has gone way down. That's not fantastic.

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Ian Hulin" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) > > >1+ for Graham's proposal, provided his bin target acts as a synonym f

Re: patches and regtest checking

On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > Mike recently posted a patch with the comment "don't run the > regtests on this; this patch is just a proof-of-concept" (or > something like that). I think this is a great idea; let's do more > of it! If a patch is not explicitly called "proo

RE: Review music functions with pitch and duration arguments

Hello, From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of David Kastrup [d...@gnu.org] Sent: 24 July 2011 13:49 To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Review music functions w

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

- Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Phil Holmes" Cc: ; "Ian Hulin" Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:11 PM Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ian

Re: patches and regtest checking

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:16:24PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > I completely second this and would like to apologize for wasting anyone's time > with regtests. oops, my initial email was a bit too harsh. I should have written "in the future, if James finds problems in your patch, you sho

\footnote 'bug' (or not?)

Hello, >From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at my >in-progress Doc patch for footnotes --snip-- \footnote associates a single footnote with a particular event in the music (usually a NoteEvent); in a certain sense it behaves like \tweak, though I'd suggest t

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

Phil Holmes wrote: "Trevor Daniels" wrote in message I don't see a commit that purports to fix this issue, nor is one referenced in the bug report. Have I missed it? Are you sure this is verified? Trevor I was simply verifying that it's a duplicate - when issues are merged they stay o

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

- Original Message - From: "Trevor Daniels" To: "Lily-Devel List" ; "Phil Holmes" Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:51 PM Subject: Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account Phil Holmes wrote: "Trevor Daniels" wrote in message I don't see a com

balloontext and footnotes - what's the difference?

Hello, Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear documentation, one's focus does become a bit tunnel-vision-like. Looking at NR 1.7.2 (Balloon Text) and my proposed patch http://codereview.apps

pushing vs. patch-review + countdown

I think we're leaning slightly towards being overly cautious. Here's little unofficial note about when to push stuff. (these guidelines may change if/when we have a GOP policy question(s) in the next few weeks; this email should not be seen as detracting from any future policy discussions) Devel

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

Graham Percival wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:15 PM Trevor: I agree that this is misleading. I would **love** to be able to configure our tracker page to say "these tags indicate that an issue should not appear on the 'issues to verify' list". I still don't see the problem. If you want to s

Re: Doc: NR Added new Node for Footnotes (issue4751045)

Another draft - I think we're nearly there. On 2011/07/18 21:33:33, Neil Puttock wrote: On 18 July 2011 22:00, wrote: See the documentation for \balloon and \balloonTextGrob. The footnote commands work in exactly the same way. Thanks that helped. \footnoteGr

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

- Original Message - From: "Trevor Daniels" To: "Graham Percival" ; "Phil Holmes" Cc: "Lily-Devel List" Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account Graham Percival wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:15 PM

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:00:24PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Trevor Daniels" > > >>I was simply verifying that it's a duplicate - when issues are > >>merged they > >>stay on the "Issues to verify" list unless this is done. > > > >That seems misleading. > > I'

Re: \footnote 'bug' (or not?)

On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, James Lowe wrote: > Hello, > > From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at > my in-progress Doc patch for footnotes > > --snip-- > > \footnote associates a single footnote with a particular event in the > music (usually a NoteEvent);

Re: balloontext and footnotes - what's the difference?

On Jul 24, 2011, at 7:01 PM, James Lowe wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does > start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear > documentation, one's focus does become a bit tunnel-vision-like. > > Looking at NR 1.7.

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 7:09 PM From: "Trevor Daniels" I still don't see the problem. If you want to see just the fixed issues to verify, can't you search for Issues to verify with Status: Fixed ? It seems to work fine. I changed 868 back to Duplicate to test it. That w

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:28:45PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Well, in this particular case it would have saved > me an hour's work. I agree that there is a problem here. I believe that the first step to investigating this problem is to find the google code tracker for google code, and eit

Doc: Usage - new option for lilypond-book (issue4806050)

LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/4806050/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: printed bars thickness inconsistencies

Sorry for the late answer! 2011/7/19 Jean-Alexis Montignies : > As it looks my email never made it to the list (may be because of the > attachment) Yes, the maximum attachment size on our mailing list is 64KB if i remember correctly. For bigger files it is necessary to upload them somewhere and

Re: printed bars thickness inconsistencies

2011/7/24 Janek Warchoł : > > Me too. > I thought that these differencies might be caused by the same thing > that makes barlines smear out of the staff, but the difference in > thickness seems too big to be caused by something like that... > Perhaps that pdf viewer is to blame. AFAIK the barline

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > Patch attached. Not convinced it's worth a Rietveld for essentially > one line? Works on my system. Thanks, pushed as soon as I'm at a real internet connection[1]. Could you add it to make help and the CG? [1] BC Ferries gives fre

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

- Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Phil Holmes" Cc: ; "Ian Hulin" Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:25 PM Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision) On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: Patch attached. Not convinced it's wor

Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 08:20:04PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > Once again, you make some excellent points.However if said list has to > be limited to *five* people, I do question the need for a mailing list > at all, rather than merely CCing whomever needs to be CCed. For clarity: assuming

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:38 PM It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch. James (or another docs guru) - any chance of adding this to the CG (probably in 4.5.1 Using make) The command "make bin" will check to see whether any changes have been made in the

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch. My apologies; my old eyes noticed the "bin-clean" target, but skipped over the "bin" in the bottom list. Cheers ,- Graham ___ l

make check still failing with midis

Hey all, I finally got a new branch of the source up and running on my mac after updating fontforge, and even in the new branch, I get the following error during make check: LILYPOND_VERSION=2.15.6 /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python ../../../scripts/lilypond-book.py

Re: Fix for Issue 620. (issue4814041)

On 24 July 2011 09:55, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > Why is it a bad thing to do it this way?  Currently, the > Beam_collision_engraver implements dynamic filtering based on interface, and > I don't think there's a problem with that (it is the only way to make it > ignore certain grobs on the

Re: Makes parameters for hairpin rotation available in Scheme (issue4809051)

On 23 July 2011 15:48, wrote: > (a) is currently impossible to calculate in all circumstances, and (c) > would require a code dup.  I think by making these available as > properties, the user can then use this data to fix the problem.  In the > example given in Issue 36, I would personally rotat

Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

Graham Percival writes: > I'll reiterate that I don't think this is a great long-term > solution -- I view the "private CCing" idea as a temporary > compromise for the next 12-18 months. Once we've gotten into the > habit of regular releases, a more firm set of development > proposals+guidelines

Re: \footnote 'bug' (or not?)

On 24 July 2011 19:51, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, James Lowe wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at >> my in-progress Doc patch for footnotes >> >> --snip-- >> >> \footnote associates a single footnote

Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not takedottednotesinto account

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > I believe that the first step to investigating this problem is to > find the google code tracker for google code, and either add this > issue there, or read the existing material if there is one. Unofficial: http://code.google.com/p/google

Re: printed bars thickness inconsistencies

2011/7/24 Xavier Scheuer : > 2011/7/24 Janek Warchoł : >> >> Me too. >> I thought that these differencies might be caused by the same thing >> that makes barlines smear out of the staff, but the difference in >> thickness seems too big to be caused by something like that... >> Perhaps that pdf view

Re: balloontext and footnotes - what's the difference?

2011/7/24 James Lowe : > I'm wondering now what the *real* difference between the two are, other than > \footnote[Grob] lets you add a footnote to a balloon text - albeit without > the 'balloon'. Perhaps i'm not understanding something, but isn't the primary difference that with footnotes the ex

Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

2011/7/22 Graham Percival > ** Proposal summary > > What should we do with potentially sensitive or private matters in > lilypond? I see two possible solutions: > >   1. Pick one person to manage private discussions. >   2. Have a private mailing list with a known list of people who > will discuss

Re: pushing vs. patch-review + countdown

Am Sonntag, 24. Juli 2011, 19:41:49 schrieb Graham Percival: > If you want to avoid the countdown, then it really hinges on > point 3. That's most difficult to judge, but you have git push > access because you've been around for a while. You should have a > fairly good idea of what I like to comm

Patch Issue 4815052: parser.yy: rearrange to allow more lenient use of music arguments for music functions.

This passes regtests without change. It is intended for discussion and experimentation. Don't put it on a countdown. parser.yy: rearrange to allow more lenient use of music arguments for music functions. This change may be somewhat contentious: it removes a lot of opportunities for syntax erro

Re: Patch Issue 4815052: parser.yy: rearrange to allow more lenient use of music arguments for music functions.

Seems like using Supersede on Gmane was a bit optimistic. Forgot the link location: http://codereview.appspot.com/4815052> David Kastrup writes: This passes regtests without change. It is intended for discussion and experimentation. Don't put it on a countdown. parser.yy: rearrange to allow

Re: modifying default behaviour of tremolo slashes (issue4636081)

Joe: redundant lines removed. Interesting thing happens when i compare regtests: i see a difference in part-combine-tuplet-end.ly, which is completely unrelated to tremolos. Even funnier, my branch compiled this test better than master... Perhaps i should've built from scratch. BTW, should i add