On 09.01.2017 01:28, Thomas Morley wrote:
Well, James set it to Patch:push, so push it, unless you think the review
wasn’t sound and it should get another one.
OTOH, regardless of what you think of { 8 8~ 2 4 }, the version of this
latest patch is uncontroversial as far as I see.
So why not reset the review-cycle?
Makes little sense to push this one and modify it immediately afterwards.
There's no_constraint_ to push it in current state, if you think the
new patch is better.
I get a feeling we’re very good at producing misunderstandings right
now… :-)
I actually meant pushing the latest version of the patch without restarting
review. To make it really clear, I produced a new patch, with only one line
altered, which after the review process we had can be pushed as is. And
I gave
it a different name, now including the issue number as recommended.
Best, Simon
>From 0b6a08f55cf76682634b21b039004ebe9ba02eb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Albrecht <sinc...@my.mail.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 03:13:29 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] NR 1.2.1.d: Split note more appropriately (issue 5027)
Durations which have to be written with ties should be
split at major subdivisions of the measure. The current
example in the NR didn't choose the most recommended way
to do this.
---
Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely b/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
index 2df6cba..9d4a756 100644
--- a/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
+++ b/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
@@ -443,7 +443,7 @@ used when note values cross larger subdivisions of the measure:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\relative {
- r8 c'~ 2 r4 |
+ r8 c'4.~ 4 r4 |
r8^"not" c2~ 8 r4
}
@end lilypond
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
