> That's a rather bad problem. We usually have a two-week schedule of > developer releases. When you find a really bad regression like that, it > makes sense to indicate its urgency and decide between > > a) revert the patch causing the problem, and then create a new patch > reintroducing the change in a fixed manner > b) speed up the submission of the followup patch and not waiting for the > regular countdown. > > When the fix is quite simple (like a typo or a very obvious oversight > needing very little code), option b) is likely the easiest. Otherwise > it makes sense to go via route a). > > Also, when submitting an issue like 4918, you should label it as > category "Regression" when it is a recently introduced problem and state > explicitly which patch/issue (if known) introduced the problem. Only > then will it be obvious to others what the consequences may be and > whether they should suggest to you or the Patch meister how to best deal > with this particular problem.
Sorry. I did not notice that it has such affected. I thought it was a trivial issue of EPS output only. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
