Comment #20 on issue 3631 by [email protected]: 2.17 does a worse job with
vertical spacing and/or the page layout than 2.16
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3631
One problem I'm having in analyzing the issue is the fact that the music
needs to be so long to show the result. Is there an example of similar
spacing that can be achieved with just two systems?
Well, my evaluation criterion was the number of output pages. Now in your
analysis, you were able to put out measurements that differ. How did you
arrive at them? If we can reliably output them, then designing a shorter
example should be feasible.
I think it is rather important to get this tackled: if the measurements
were provably and consistently _wrong_ before, we should try to adapt the
default distances such that the outcome is usually comparable to what we
had before. But it looks to me as if the bar numbers at the start of the
line should quite rarely figure in the staff-staff distance.
I've seen a number of reports of the "2.16 takes more pages for my scores
than 2.12, so I'll rather stick with 2.12" kind on the mailing lists. For
some people, this is the most important thing they want from music
typesetting: squeeze as much material onto paper as possible with decent
readability. We can't support old LilyPond versions indefinitely, and if
people stop recompiling their scores with newer and/or even available
versions, the whole Free Software idea of providing people with the source
to tinker with flies out the window.
So stupid as that may sound: the metric of not taking more space than
previously unless there is excellent reason for it is important.
So to get back to the issue: how did you arrive at your numbers? If we
know that, we can try to cook up some recipe producing similar numbers but
taking less time and effort.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
