Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Graham Percival 
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:17:38AM +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> I get a feeling we’re very good at producing misunderstandings right now…
> :-)

Yes.  :)

I have pushed the attached patch to staging.

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Simon Albrecht 

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 
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

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Thomas Morley 
2017-01-09 1:15 GMT+01:00 Simon Albrecht :
> On 09.01.2017 01:05, Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what I should do.
>>
>> Push the counted down patch or do you want to have your new patch
>> uploaded or ...?
>
>
> 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.

Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Simon Albrecht 

On 09.01.2017 01:05, Thomas Morley wrote:

I'm not sure what I should do.

Push the counted down patch or do you want to have your new patch
uploaded or ...?


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.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Thomas Morley 
2017-01-08 17:36 GMT+01:00 Simon Albrecht :
> On 08.01.2017 16:23, James wrote:
>>
>> 5027 NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly - Simon Albrecht
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5027
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/319940043
>
>
> I do not think the Hindemith quote brought up by Hans Aberg is
> representative of common notational convention, nevertheless I removed the
> third bar from the new example so it doesn’t speak up against { 8 8~ 2 4 }.
> New patch attached.


Hi Simon,

I'm not sure what I should do.

Push the counted down patch or do you want to have your new patch
uploaded or ...?

Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: patch for git-cl

2017-01-08 Thread Thomas Morley 
2017-01-09 0:09 GMT+01:00 Graham Percival :
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 09:02:51PM +, Thomas Morley wrote:
>> attached a little patch for git-cl to replace googlecodeissue by
>> trackerissue in cl_settings.py, which will result in correct info in
>> .git/config
>>
>> How do we handle patches to git-cl?
>
> In general, I'd recommend a PR,

Ok, will do next time.

> but I've applied this directly and
> pushed.

Thanks,
  Harm

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: patch for git-cl

2017-01-08 Thread Graham Percival 
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 09:02:51PM +, Thomas Morley wrote:
> attached a little patch for git-cl to replace googlecodeissue by
> trackerissue in cl_settings.py, which will result in correct info in
> .git/config
> 
> How do we handle patches to git-cl?

In general, I'd recommend a PR, but I've applied this directly and
pushed.  Thanks!

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: patch for git-cl

2017-01-08 Thread Graham Percival 
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 10:15:24PM +, James wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 21:02:51 +
> Thomas Morley  wrote:
> 
> > attached a little patch for git-cl to replace googlecodeissue by
> > trackerissue in cl_settings.py, which will result in correct info in
> > .git/config
> > 
> > How do we handle patches to git-cl?
> 
> 
> I imagine pull requests to
> 
> https://github.com/gperciva/git-cl.git

That certainly works, but in this case I can handle it manually in
a few hours.

- Graham

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: patch for git-cl

2017-01-08 Thread James 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 21:02:51 +
Thomas Morley  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> attached a little patch for git-cl to replace googlecodeissue by
> trackerissue in cl_settings.py, which will result in correct info in
> .git/config
> 
> How do we handle patches to git-cl?


I imagine pull requests to

https://github.com/gperciva/git-cl.git

See

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page.html#git_002dcl


James

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

patch for git-cl

2017-01-08 Thread Thomas Morley 
Hi,

attached a little patch for git-cl to replace googlecodeissue by
trackerissue in cl_settings.py, which will result in correct info in
.git/config

How do we handle patches to git-cl?

Cheers,
  Harm
From b8364652a91f3e07bef7719da71f56994c69e7b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Morley 
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 20:39:48 +
Subject: [PATCH] Replace googlecodeissue by trackerissue in cl_settings.py

The file .git/config will not longer point incorrectly to googlecode
---
 cl_settings.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/cl_settings.py b/cl_settings.py
index 0822b93..4e6bd95 100644
--- a/cl_settings.py
+++ b/cl_settings.py
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ or verify this branch is set up to track another (via the --track argument to
 
   def _TrackerIssueSetting(self):
 """Returns the git setting that stores the Tracker issue."""
-return 'branch.%s.googlecodeissue' % self.GetBranch()
+return 'branch.%s.trackerissue' % self.GetBranch()
 
   def _RietveldIssueSetting(self):
 """Returns the git setting that stores the Rietveld issue."""
-- 
2.1.4

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly (issue 319940043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

2017-01-08 Thread Simon Albrecht 

On 08.01.2017 17:48, thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote:

Not sure you can upload to _this_ Rietveld issue.
Probably best you try and if not a new will be opened (and I close this
one). 


Since the review is finished (James set it to Patch:push) just close it 
– that’s what I couldn’t do.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

New Danish PO file for 'lilypond' (version 2.19.54)

2017-01-08 Thread Translation Project Robot 
Hello, gentle maintainer.

This is a message from the Translation Project robot.

A revised PO file for textual domain 'lilypond' has been submitted
by the Danish team of translators.  The file is available at:

http://translationproject.org/latest/lilypond/da.po

(We can arrange things so that in the future such files are automatically
e-mailed to you when they arrive.  Ask at the address below if you want this.)

All other PO files for your package are available in:

http://translationproject.org/latest/lilypond/

Please consider including all of these in your next release, whether
official or a pretest.

Whenever you have a new distribution with a new version number ready,
containing a newer POT file, please send the URL of that distribution
tarball to the address below.  The tarball may be just a pretest or a
snapshot, it does not even have to compile.  It is just used by the
translators when they need some extra translation context.

The following HTML page has been updated:

http://translationproject.org/domain/lilypond.html

If any question arises, please contact the translation coordinator.

Thank you for all your work,

The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly (issue 319940043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

2017-01-08 Thread thomasmorley65 

On 2017/01/08 16:42:58, simon.albrecht wrote:

On 04.01.2017 00:14, mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote:
> (I shepherd this for Simon, as long as he has problems with his

google

> account)



For the record: Google prevented the login despite that I accessed the



internet with the same machine as always, and only because I did so
through a different internet service provider. I am still bewildered
that this perfectly normal case starts such a conundrum, but at any

rate

I have access to the account now, being back home.



Best, Simon


Not sure you can upload to _this_ Rietveld issue.
Probably best you try and if not a new will be opened (and I close this
one).

https://codereview.appspot.com/319940043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly (issue 319940043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

2017-01-08 Thread Simon Albrecht 

On 04.01.2017 00:14, thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote:

(I shepherd this for Simon, as long as he has problems with his google
account) 


For the record: Google prevented the login despite that I accessed the 
internet with the same machine as always, and only because I did so 
through a different internet service provider. I am still bewildered 
that this perfectly normal case starts such a conundrum, but at any rate 
I have access to the account now, being back home.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread Simon Albrecht 

On 08.01.2017 16:23, James wrote:

5027 NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly - Simon Albrecht
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5027
http://codereview.appspot.com/319940043


I do not think the Hindemith quote brought up by Hans Aberg is 
representative of common notational convention, nevertheless I removed 
the third bar from the new example so it doesn’t speak up against { 8 8~ 
2 4 }. New patch attached.


Thanks for the administration work!
Simon
>From a57e7005dab3c2b119827a2658eaf5025e7ff2ca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Albrecht 
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 23:41:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly

In 4/4 time, a note crossing the middle of the bar should be
split at the middle of the bar.  The current example displays
bad engraving practice.
---
 Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely b/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
index 2df6cba..640a6c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
+++ b/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
@@ -443,8 +443,9 @@ used when note values cross larger subdivisions of the measure:
 
 @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
 \relative {
-  r8 c'~ 2 r4 |
-  r8^"not" c2~ 8 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

PATCHES - Countdown for January 8th

2017-01-08 Thread James 
Hello,

Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on
January 11th

A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be
found here:

http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/



Push:


5027 NR 1.2.1.d: Split note correctly - Simon Albrecht
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5027
http://codereview.appspot.com/319940043


5025 Let the distance of strings and frets in fret-diagrams be settable
- Thomas Morley https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5025
http://codereview.appspot.com/319030043


5024 Rework the Preinit framework into something simpler - David Kastrup
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5024
http://codereview.appspot.com/318200043


4983 \crossStaff only hides default-style flags - Thomas Morley
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4983
http://codereview.appspot.com/315330043


Countdown:


5022 Allow fixed spacing of symbols in church rests - David Nalesnik
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5022
http://codereview.appspot.com/319910043


5028 Correct some typos german doc - Thomas Morley
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5028
http://codereview.appspot.com/319060043


Review:


5029 Implement shorten-pair for Hairpin - David Nalesnik
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5029
http://codereview.appspot.com/315350043


4931 make \deadNote work with different fonts - Thomas Morley
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4931
http://codereview.appspot.com/309780043


4509 Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders - Alexander
Kobel https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4509
http://codereview.appspot.com/313240043


New: No new patches at this time.


Waiting:

4600 Let notes/rests suppress multi-measure rest grobs - Dan Eble
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4600
http://codereview.appspot.com/265160043



Regards

James

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Implement shorten-pair for Hairpin (issue 315350043 by david.nales...@gmail.com)

2017-01-08 Thread david . nalesnik 

On 2017/01/08 11:37:18, thomasmorley651 wrote:

On 2017/01/07 17:12:57, david.nalesnik wrote:
> Please review. Thanks!



Hi David,



very nice.



I can't review C++-code, but applied the patch and tested with:



\layout { \override Hairpin.layer = 200 \override Hairpin.color = #red

}


{
   \override Hairpin.minimum-length = 40
   \override Hairpin.shorten-pair = #'(-4 . -4)
   c'1\~\< c'1~ c'2~ c'2\\!
   \break
   c'1~\< c'1~ c'2~ c'2\!
}



Observations:



(1)
Obviously the actual printed extents of the Hairpin are affected.
(2)
It's now possible that the Hairpin collides with DynamicText for bad

settings of

shorten-pair.
DynamicText is not pushed out of the way. So shorten-pair is _not_ the

correct

tool to set the overall length of a Hairpin, but for fine tunings.


This is also the case with 'bound-padding and 'broken-bound-padding.  To
see this, replace the shorten-pair line in your example with

\override Hairpin.bound-padding = #-4

By the way, bound-padding isn't equivalent to shorten-pair.  If you
replace the shorten-pair overrides in my testing example with
bound-padding, you'll see no effect on the ends of the hairpins.
Bound-padding requires some sort of potentially colliding object on the
left or right.  (On the right this includes a barline -- even if there
is no span-bar.)


For that
purpose minimum-length is still the way to go.



This should be documented.



Worth a regtest and an entry in changes.


OK, will do.

Thanks for the review!


https://codereview.appspot.com/315350043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Implement shorten-pair for Hairpin (issue 315350043 by david.nales...@gmail.com)

2017-01-08 Thread thomasmorley65 

On 2017/01/07 17:12:57, david.nalesnik wrote:

Please review. Thanks!


Hi David,

very nice.

I can't review C++-code, but applied the patch and tested with:

\layout { \override Hairpin.layer = 200 \override Hairpin.color = #red }

{
  \override Hairpin.minimum-length = 40
  \override Hairpin.shorten-pair = #'(-4 . -4)
  c'1\~\< c'1~ c'2~ c'2\\!
  \break
  c'1~\< c'1~ c'2~ c'2\!
}

Observations:

(1)
Obviously the actual printed extents of the Hairpin are affected.
(2)
It's now possible that the Hairpin collides with DynamicText for bad
settings of shorten-pair.
DynamicText is not pushed out of the way. So shorten-pair is _not_ the
correct tool to set the overall length of a Hairpin, but for fine
tunings. For that purpose minimum-length is still the way to go.

This should be documented.

Worth a regtest and an entry in changes.




https://codereview.appspot.com/315350043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel