PATCHES: Countdown - May 21st - 06:00 GMT

Hello, 2812

Re: Leave extension in .dep under mf/ , as we have multiple rules generating .dep files. (issue 99300043)

according to git it was Julien. https://codereview.appspot.com/99300043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Use built-in make functions for finding absolute paths. (issue 97510043)

On 2014/05/17 15:54:25, dak wrote: On 2014/05/17 13:21:19, hanwenn wrote: > david, can you have a look? Well, I checked that the function used (realpath) has been present in GNU make since something like 2006. So we should be basically fine, but Windows path names are always a dare anyway

Re: Use built-in make functions for finding absolute paths. (issue 97510043)

On 2014/05/18 12:15:56, hanwenn wrote: On 2014/05/17 15:54:25, dak wrote: > On 2014/05/17 13:21:19, hanwenn wrote: > > david, can you have a look? > > Well, I checked that the function used (realpath) has been present in GNU make > since something like 2006. So we should be basically fine, but

Re: Generate a .pe script for one design size at a time. (issue 93430043)

On 2014/05/17 15:13:20, lemzwerg wrote: https://codereview.appspot.com/93430043/diff/40001/mf/GNUmakefile File mf/GNUmakefile (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/93430043/diff/40001/mf/GNUmakefile#newcode119 mf/GNUmakefile:119: true Does this really work? I've never seen a make rule like

Two pondings patches pushed to staging

As discussed previously I take it for granted that pondings don't need formal review. I still want to announce that I have pushed to ponding's commits to staging to give an opportunity to object. Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@g

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

2014-05-17 9:17 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> I think David thought of something at the lines of the following function: >> >> appearance = >> #(define-music-function (parser location mrkp item) >>(markup? symbol-list-or-music?) >> (let ((stil (lambda (item) >>

Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging

On 18/05/14 15:38, Urs Liska wrote: > > As discussed previously I take it for granted that pondings don't need > formal review. uh .. they can still break master if you screw up your checkin (I know, I have done it). So yes they should have a _full_ patch test _at least_. After that then do what

Re: Generate a .pe script for one design size at a time. (issue 93430043)

LGTM now, thanks. https://codereview.appspot.com/93430043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging

Am 18.05.2014 17:54, schrieb James: On 18/05/14 15:38, Urs Liska wrote: As discussed previously I take it for granted that pondings don't need formal review. uh .. they can still break master if you screw up your checkin (I know, I have done it). So yes they should have a _full_ patch test _a

Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging

- Original Message - From: "Urs Liska" To: "James" ; "LilyPond Development Team" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging Am 18.05.2014 17:54, schrieb James: On 18/05/14 15:38, Urs Liska wrote: As discussed previously I take it for gr

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

David Kastrup wrote >> As a first step (just working with \override X.X.stencil =) could there >> be >> an easier way to just override a stencil with a markup (that gets >> converted >> into a stencil)? > > That would end up a very invasive mess. A stencil is really a stencil > and referenced as

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

Paul Morris writes: > Just to make sure I'm communicating my other idea (above)... you're > saying the following wouldn't work well either (but would end up an > invasive mess)? > > The code that handles overriding stencils could accept either a > stencil or a markup, and when it received a marku

Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging

On 18/05/14 17:39, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 18.05.2014 17:54, schrieb James: >> On 18/05/14 15:38, Urs Liska wrote: >>> >>> As discussed previously I take it for granted that pondings don't need >>> formal review. >> >> uh .. they can still break master if you screw up your checkin (I know, >> I have

Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging

On 18/05/14 18:09, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Urs Liska" > To: "James" ; "LilyPond Development Team" > > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 5:39 PM > Subject: Re: Two pondings patches pushed to staging > > >> Am 18.05.2014 17:54, schrieb James: >>> On 18/05/14 15:38, Urs Lis

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

David Kastrup wrote > There is not one "code that handles overriding stencils". Overrides are > a general mechanism. So we are talking about the code _interpreting_ > stencils. This code will tend to be some get_property ("stencil") call. > There are a lot of those from a lot of different engrav

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

Paul Morris writes: > David Kastrup wrote >> There is not one "code that handles overriding stencils". Overrides are >> a general mechanism. So we are talking about the code _interpreting_ >> stencils. This code will tend to be some get_property ("stencil") call. >> There are a lot of those fr

Re: Issue 3918: Add \alternatingTimeSignatures (issue 97110045)

David Kastrup wrote > Overrides are type-checked early, so you'd get the error early. > Callbacks are considered valid when type-checking however, so a callback > returning something unfitting will lead to a late error message > (hopefully). Ok, makes sense. Thanks again for the explanations. -P