So it appears that the biggest source of Critical bugs, and the thing that
is holding up release of 2.14, is the beam-collision-engraver.
Should we try to remove the beam-collision-engraver from 2.14.0? Or should
we wait for it to settle itself out and make it part of 2.14.0? I can see
- Original Message -
From: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu
To: Lily devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:59 PM
Subject: Backporting / stable
So it appears that the biggest source of Critical bugs, and the thing that
is holding up release of 2.14, is the
On 4/30/11 8:07 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu
To: Lily devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:59 PM
Subject: Backporting / stable
So it appears that the biggest source of Critical
LGTM, with Neil's comments implemented.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4449061/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM, although I'm not an expert on articulate.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4435069/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM. A couple of non-essential comments.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4442083/diff/12001/input/regression/rest-polyphonic-2.ly
File input/regression/rest-polyphonic-2.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4442083/diff/12001/input/regression/rest-polyphonic-2.ly#newcode5
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:37:01AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
I actually think it would be more work to remove the beam-collision-engraver
than to keep it in. But at this point I expect it to be months before we
are sure we're clear of Critical bugs in beam-collision engraver.
We don't
On 4/30/11 8:49 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:37:01AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
I actually think it would be more work to remove the beam-collision-engraver
than to keep it in. But at this point I expect it to be months before we
are sure
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:52:42AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 4/30/11 8:49 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
We don't need to be sure that we're clear. All we need... or at
least, all I want before uploading the official 2.14.0... is for
one week without *known*
On 2011/03/22 06:28:42, joeneeman wrote:
In that case, a better way to avoid too many warnings might
be just to add a static bool to check if a warning has already
been issued.
Done, and removed the original code that had no effect.
Given that the old code merely printed warning, the warning
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4278058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This patch fixes issues 1639 and 1640.
Description:
Fixes issues 1639 and 1640.
Consecutive glissandos are typeset, and line breaks can happen
with killed glissandi.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4457042/
Affected files:
A
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4457042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Regtest for 1640?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4457042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:45 PM, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
Regtest for 1640?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4457042/
Added.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:52:42AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 4/30/11 8:49 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
We don't need to be sure that we're clear. All we need... or at
least, all I want before uploading the
On 4/30/11 4:51 PM, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:52:42AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 4/30/11 8:49 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
We don't need to be sure that we're
On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:49 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:45 PM, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
Regtest for 1640?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4457042/
Added.
Pushed as 475a1f94b5733476d746d2c012809f3f2e6f0fcc.
Cheers,
MS
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This is a significant rewrite of one chunk of of beam.cc that fixes
issue 1613.
I won't have the time to run the regtests today to think if it breaks
anything, but I have run it on several test files and it seems to yield
good results. Please look it over and let me know
Looks good to me -- just a comment on a variable name.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4426072/diff/1001/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4426072/diff/1001/lily/beam.cc#newcode1272
lily/beam.cc:1272: Interval vorboten;
We shouldn't use german words for
Sorry about that...back to German 101!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4426072/diff/1001/lily/beam.cc
File lily/beam.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4426072/diff/1001/lily/beam.cc#newcode1272
lily/beam.cc:1272: Interval vorboten;
On 2011/05/01 00:56:39, Carl wrote:
We shouldn't use
Can you document what this is doing?
My idea was to have a datatype
class RealSubset {
// Starts out as full interval
Real_subset();
// Remove an interval
remove(Interval v);
// Return sorted, non-overlapping list of allowed intervals
vectorInterval allowed() const;
// implement
On 2011/05/01 02:44:31, hanwenn wrote:
Can you document what this is doing?
My idea was to have a datatype
class RealSubset {
// Starts out as full interval
Real_subset();
// Remove an interval
remove(Interval v);
// Return sorted, non-overlapping list of allowed
23 matches
Mail list logo
