Mike Solomon writes:
> I had coffee with a developer a year or so ago who told me that he
> dropped out of the project because of commutation problems with David.
> Last night I wrote to him to share some of these frustrations and he
> wrote back: “as long as David is leading up the team, it’s a
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>> I had coffee with a developer a year or so ago who told me that he
>> dropped out of the project because of commutation problems with David.
>> Last night I wrote to him to share some of these frustrations and he
>>
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:22:19 -0800, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> "Keith OHara" writes:
>>
>>> The last time we had a doubling of time required on Windows relative
>>> to Linux, issue 1926, it was repeated calls to find_by_name() that go
>>> through Pango to the font server.
2013/12/10 Phil Holmes
> - Original Message - From: "Werner LEMBERG"
> To:
> Cc: ; ;
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
>
>
>
>
>> \faster-but-uglier
>>> \a-lot-faster-but-a-lot-uglier
>>> \ridiculously-fast-and-heinou
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>
> We are currently taking a look at how to create regions of LilyPond that
> can be worked on independently and without affecting the overall quality
> of LilyPond. If we manage to do this successfully, we'll be abl
2013/12/9 Janek Warchoł :
> recently my LilyPond activity was very high - not far from 24/7 ;-P -
> but unfortunately this period will end soon (my arms hurt - they need
> a break from computer...).
Turns out that my arms *really* need a break asap, so i won't be able
to finish what i wanted - jus
2013/12/10 :
>> However, if you don't mind, i'd prefer to leave it as is - i have
>> _already_ spent about 4 hours cleaning up and rebasing commits to make
>> them somewhat ordered for review, and i'm quite tired.
>
>
> I do mind. this is not the sort of thing that can be done in a
> follow up pa
Mike Solomon wrote Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:22 AM
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> As opposed to me, Graham excelled at organizing
>> and maintaining community efforts like this which makes his leaving an
>> even larger loss.
>
> His leaving is a huge loss, and as
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Mike Solomon wrote Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:22 AM
>
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> As opposed to me, Graham excelled at organizing
>>> and maintaining community efforts like this which makes his leavi
2013/12/10 Janek Warchoł :
> 2013/12/7 Janek Warchoł :
>> i'm infuriated. A new contributor had turned up, read CG and sent his
>> patch to the "frogs" mailing list, which, as far as i know, is dead
>> (and since lilynet is down, i'm not sure it's actually working at
>> all).
>> I'm so angry that
Hi all,
[I have sent a message a few hours ago, but from a different email
account.
If this first email should go through nevertheless, the email you
are reading
now is the only relevant version.]
as should be known by now I'm currently reviewing the content of
lilypond.org to make i
hi Janek,
2013/12/11 Janek Warchoł :
> 2013/12/10 :
>>> However, if you don't mind, i'd prefer to leave it as is - i have
>>> _already_ spent about 4 hours cleaning up and rebasing commits to make
>>> them somewhat ordered for review, and i'm quite tired.
>>
>>
>> I do mind. this is not the sort
I have a headache after the first file of 30, so this is just this one
file and does not imply that the others are fine.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7185044/diff/164001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc
File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7185044/diff/164001/l
Mike Solomon writes:
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But that’s no good - we have to find a solution. Modularity, while
> perhaps a good long term solution, is a long ways away. How are we
> going to deal with this in 2014?
By making headway and not be defeatist
Urs Liska writes:
> I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
> with the following steps:
> - get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
> (Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only one formal
> review in the end)
> - Once tha
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only on
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally an
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:36, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for
Am 11.12.2013 15:59, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:36, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 11.12.2013 15:31, schrieb James:
Urs,
On 11/12/13 14:14, David Kastrup wrote:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to
proceed
with the following steps:
- get the propo
On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:56 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Mike Solomon writes:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> But that’s no good - we have to find a solution. Modularity, while
>> perhaps a good long term solution, is a long ways away. How are we
>> going
Am 11.12.2013 15:14, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
I have discussed with Carl (Peterson) that it would be good to proceed
with the following steps:
- get the proposed _content_ changes into a shape for a formal review.
(Do this informally and incrementally so we'll have only one
Hi all,
as should be known by now I'm reviewing the content of lilypond.org to
make it more accessible to new users.
Actually I intended to clarify the command-line-enhanced-editor issue to
avoid the double-click-on-lilypond.exe-doesn't-open-program
misconception, but it seems to be necessary
Am 11.12.2013 12:29, schrieb openLilyLib:
Hi all,
as should be known by now I'm reviewing the content of lilypond.org to
make it more accessible to new users.
Actually I intended to clarify the command-line-enhanced-editor issue
to avoid the double-click-on-lilypond.exe-doesn't-open-program
m
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:48:54PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> PS ccing to Graham because he might be interested to know that
> Someone(TM) is doing Something(TM) to help new contributors!
Sorry, this awoke Grumpy Graham.
Reorganizing the CG is very much a "something should be done, this
is som
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:21:28PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>- I changed "Easier editing" to "Editing".
ok. I also like the "applicances" tab, although I agree with you
that the name might be ideal (but I also can't think of a better
name right now).
>- I organized the entry scenario (= i
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:48:54PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> > PS ccing to Graham because he might be interested to know that
> > Someone(TM) is doing Something(TM) to help new contributors!
>
> Sorry, this awoke Grumpy Graham.
>
> Reor
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:20:22PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
> I was able to connect to git with minimal fuss, and currently
> use the lily-git.tcl tool to handle commits and patches.
Great! This suggests that the introduction in the CG is ok.
>All that said, where things got interesting f
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Graham Percival
wrote
>
> Fixing this doesn't require a reorganization. It requires
> deleting the two incorrect bits, dumping a @ref{Submitting a
> patch} or whatever the @node is called. On a similar note,
> there's at least 2 "checklists before submitting a pa
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26:55PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
>In my searching, I didn't find a page that really did this. Section 1.2 of
>the current CG should theoretically do this (based on the title), but it
>mostly just talks philosophically about git.
Sounds good. I've never li
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Patch for initial solution to issue 3714, regarding color-coding of
manuals.
This patch color codes more-or-less according to David K.'s proposal on
the lilypond-user. Does not currently distinguish between dev and stable
in the styling, but the functionality is there to do
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26:55PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
> >In my searching, I didn't find a page that really did this. Section
> 1.2 of
> >the current CG should theoretically do this (based on the title), but
> it
> >mos
LGTM, with one small nit.
https://codereview.appspot.com/36480048/diff/1/Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css
File Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/36480048/diff/1/Documentation/css/lilypond-manuals.css#newcode456
Documentation/css/lilypond-manual
>> One extra lookup per glyph might be enough to explain the difference.
>> We need to look up the glyph to get a skyline, but maybe could cache
>> its index into the font in the stencil.
>
> That does not sound very useful since we still would do the lookup
> once per stencil rather than once pe
Carlo,
On 12/12/13 06:06, carlopeter...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Patch for initial solution to issue 3714, regarding color-coding of
manuals. .
Make sure the tracker is set to patch-new else it won't get reviewed
properly (if at all) and certainly won't get tested and th
34 matches
Mail list logo
