On 12/16/11 12:12 PM, "Xavier Scheuer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 16 December 2011 19:48, Thomas Scharkowski <[email protected]> >wrote: >> \times 2/3 { b16 b b } b8 b4 b b >> >> 2.15.22 produces a (wrong) beam subdivison. >> 2.14.2 output is correct. >> See attachments. > >Result is fine with 2.15.20. >I did not make a git-bisect but I suspect Carl's fix for issue #11 >to be the cause of this. >http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=11 I am quite sure that this is the case. > >I'm not a git expert but it seems Carl's commit was pushed a few hours >after 2.15.20 release, so issue #11 should have been tagged as >fixed_2_15_21, isn't it? That is probably correct. > >A better wording for this issue report would be something like >"unexpected beamlet in tuplet sixteenth". But maybe it is better to >reopen issue #11. No, do not reopen issue #11. This is *not* issue 11. It is a separate issue caused by the fix to issue #11. We should *never* reopen fixed issues unless we see that the issue was in fact, not fixed. The regtest for issue 11 shows that issue 11 has been solved. That fix introduced a regression that was not tested by the existing regression tests. We now have a new problem, and a new potential regression test. When I've fixed the new problem, the regtests will show that 11 is *still* fixed. So a new issue should be added for this bug. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
