http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/diff/10001/lily/stem-tremolo.cc
File lily/stem-tremolo.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/diff/10001/lily/stem-tremolo.cc#newcode93
lily/stem-tremolo.cc:93: style = ly_symbol2scm (constant);
On 2011/07/23 19:58:19, Janek Warchol wrote:
On
2011/7/24 lemzw...@googlemail.com:
I don't mind if we have another obscure entry in the detail list
currently. If your patches fixes the problem reliably, this would be a
great immediate help.
IMHO, at some point in the hopefully not too distant future, the whole
handling of slurs and ties
I'm currently preparing an extensive report on the matter of ties.
I estimate that 30% of work is done.
This is great news!
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:05 AM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give me an idea what his does and how to test this or what I am
going to see as someone who runs a lot of make/reg tests?
Try adding an undocumented property to an interface (i.e. add foo to the Stem
interface) and then run
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 23 July 2011 23:05, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give me an idea what his does and how to test this or what I am
going to see as someone who runs a lot of make/reg tests?
If somebody forgets to document a new property (in
On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:56 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4814041/diff/6001/scm/define-grob-properties.scm
File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4814041/diff/6001/scm/define-grob-properties.scm#newcode1000
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk; Phil Holmes
em...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sat, Jul
Make passes but reg test check fails
see my comment:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=36#c5
http://codereview.appspot.com/4809051/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Make passes and reg tests look pretty good too
See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=163#c12
for output
http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
make passes and reg test check is ok.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4816044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Passes make and reg tests.
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/4794057/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
makes fine. No reg test differences now.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4636081/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca; Trevor Daniels
t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
- Original
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
I put the current state up on Rietveld at
URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/4811047
I don't have a usage example to go with the patch though. If somebody
has something nice to offer...
Again: usage example would be welcome.
After extensively discussing
Passes make and reg tests show some differences - nothing significantly
wrong
see
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1768#c6
for screenshots
(couldn't see where mikes attached differences were - so redid them
again myself for the tracker in case people were not seeing what had
Mike
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of
m...@apollinemike.com [m...@apollinemike.com]
Sent: 24 July 2011 10:55
To: mts...@gmail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com;
Hello,
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of David
Kastrup [d...@gnu.org]
Sent: 24 July 2011 12:05
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Review music functions
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM
2011/7/21 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
If the compile and link succeed, you usually ctrl-C out of make
as soon as linking has finished so you can get on with testing.
So you
James Lowe james.l...@datacore.com writes:
Hello,
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of
David Kastrup [d...@gnu.org]
Sent: 24 July 2011 12:05
To:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, James Lowe james.l...@datacore.com wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and
variants with myself...
I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link?
I think we ought to have
After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and
variants with myself...
I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link?
I think we ought to have a private mailing list for such discussions.
Discussions that take place in one's mind are just too
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
After extensively discussing the relative merits of this approach and
variants with myself...
I can't find those emails in the archive...do you have a link?
I think we ought to have a private mailing list for such discussions.
Discussions that take
New patchset uploaded with minor tweaks.
I still need to think about a better way to implement the change in
score_edges. The idea is that if there is a large jump right at the
beginning or end of the stem, we should favor attachments points that
are closer to the Y-position of the second
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
Hi Trevor,
On 23/07/11 15:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, July 23, 2011
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Please don't run regtests yet on this patch - it is up to see if people
are OK with this approach. It is a brute-force approach that will slow
down lilypond for slurs that have extra-object-collisions, but I think
it'll cover the grand majority of cases.
Description:
tl;dr: if James does a regtest check of your patch and sees
problems, you should be ashamed.
In the past few weeks, we've had a fantastic deluge of patches.
Fantastic deluge is fantastic.
However, our ratio of regtest-passing-patches vs. problem-patches
has gone way down. That's not fantastic.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
1+ for Graham's proposal, provided his
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
Mike recently posted a patch with the comment don't run the
regtests on this; this patch is just a proof-of-concept (or
something like that). I think this is a great idea; let's do more
of it! If a patch is not explicitly called proof of
Hello,
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of David
Kastrup [d...@gnu.org]
Sent: 24 July 2011 13:49
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Review music functions
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:16:24PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
I completely second this and would like to apologize for wasting anyone's time
with regtests.
oops, my initial email was a bit too harsh. I should have written
in the future, if James finds problems in your patch, you
Hello,
From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at my
in-progress Doc patch for footnotes
--snip--
\footnote associates a single footnote with a particular event in the
music (usually a NoteEvent); in a certain sense it behaves like
\tweak, though I'd suggest to
Phil Holmes wrote:
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote in message
I don't see a commit that purports to fix this issue,
nor is one referenced in the bug report.
Have I missed it? Are you sure this is verified?
Trevor
I was simply verifying that it's a duplicate - when issues are
- Original Message -
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Lily-Devel List lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Phil Holmes
m...@philholmes.net
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not
takedottednotesinto account
Phil Holmes wrote:
Hello,
Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does
start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear documentation,
one's focus does become a bit tunnel-vision-like.
Looking at NR 1.7.2 (Balloon Text) and my proposed patch
I think we're leaning slightly towards being overly cautious.
Here's little unofficial note about when to push stuff.
(these guidelines may change if/when we have a GOP policy
question(s) in the next few weeks; this email should not be seen
as detracting from any future policy discussions)
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:15 PM
Trevor: I agree that this is misleading. I would **love** to be
able to configure our tracker page to say these tags indicate
that an issue should not appear on the 'issues to verify' list.
I still don't see the problem. If you want to
Another draft - I think we're nearly there.
On 2011/07/18 21:33:33, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 18 July 2011 22:00, mailto:pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
See the documentation for \balloon and \balloonTextGrob. The footnote
commands work in exactly the same way.
Thanks that helped.
- Original Message -
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca; Phil Holmes
m...@philholmes.net
Cc: Lily-Devel List lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 868 in lilypond: \parenthesize does not
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:00:24PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Trevor Daniels
t.dani...@treda.co.uk
I was simply verifying that it's a duplicate - when issues are
merged they
stay on the Issues to verify list unless this is done.
That seems misleading.
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, James Lowe wrote:
Hello,
From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at
my in-progress Doc patch for footnotes
--snip--
\footnote associates a single footnote with a particular event in the
music (usually a NoteEvent); in a
On Jul 24, 2011, at 7:01 PM, James Lowe wrote:
Hello,
Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does
start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear
documentation, one's focus does become a bit tunnel-vision-like.
Looking at NR 1.7.2
Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 7:09 PM
From: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
I still don't see the problem. If you want to see just
the fixed issues to verify, can't you search for
Issues to verify with Status: Fixed ?
It seems to work fine. I changed 868 back to
Duplicate
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:28:45PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Well, in this particular case it would have saved
me an hour's work.
I agree that there is a problem here.
I believe that the first step to investigating this problem is to
find the google code tracker for google code, and
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/4806050/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Sorry for the late answer!
2011/7/19 Jean-Alexis Montignies j...@montignies.info:
As it looks my email never made it to the list (may be because of the
attachment)
Yes, the maximum attachment size on our mailing list is 64KB if i
remember correctly. For bigger files it is necessary to upload
2011/7/24 Janek Warchoł lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com:
Me too.
I thought that these differencies might be caused by the same thing
that makes barlines smear out of the staff, but the difference in
thickness seems too big to be caused by something like that...
Perhaps that pdf viewer is to
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:37:28PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Patch attached. Not convinced it's worth a Rietveld for essentially
one line? Works on my system.
Thanks, pushed as soon as I'm at a real internet connection[1].
Could you add it to
make help
and the CG?
[1] BC Ferries gives free
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable decision)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 08:20:04PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Once again, you make some excellent points.However if said list has to
be limited to *five* people, I do question the need for a mailing list
at all, rather than merely CCing whomever needs to be CCed.
For clarity: assuming
Phil Holmes wrote Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:38 PM
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
James (or another docs guru) - any chance of adding this to the CG
(probably in 4.5.1 Using make)
The command make bin will check to see whether any changes have
been made in the
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
It's already in make help - that's why it was a 4 line patch.
My apologies; my old eyes noticed the bin-clean target, but
skipped over the bin in the bottom list.
Cheers
,- Graham
___
Hey all,
I finally got a new branch of the source up and running on my mac after
updating fontforge, and even in the new branch, I get the following error
during make check:
LILYPOND_VERSION=2.15.6
/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python
../../../scripts/lilypond-book.py
On 24 July 2011 09:55, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
Why is it a bad thing to do it this way? Currently, the
Beam_collision_engraver implements dynamic filtering based on interface, and
I don't think there's a problem with that (it is the only way to make it
ignore
On 23 July 2011 15:48, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
(a) is currently impossible to calculate in all circumstances, and (c)
would require a code dup. I think by making these available as
properties, the user can then use this data to fix the problem. In the
example given in Issue 36, I would
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
I'll reiterate that I don't think this is a great long-term
solution -- I view the private CCing idea as a temporary
compromise for the next 12-18 months. Once we've gotten into the
habit of regular releases, a more firm set of development
On 24 July 2011 19:51, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, James Lowe wrote:
Hello,
From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at
my in-progress Doc patch for footnotes
--snip--
\footnote associates a single
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
I believe that the first step to investigating this problem is to
find the google code tracker for google code, and either add this
issue there, or read the existing material if there is one.
Unofficial:
2011/7/24 Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com:
2011/7/24 Janek Warchoł lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com:
Me too.
I thought that these differencies might be caused by the same thing
that makes barlines smear out of the staff, but the difference in
thickness seems too big to be caused by
2011/7/24 James Lowe james.l...@datacore.com:
I'm wondering now what the *real* difference between the two are, other than
\footnote[Grob] lets you add a footnote to a balloon text - albeit without
the 'balloon'.
Perhaps i'm not understanding something, but isn't the primary
difference that
2011/7/22 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
** Proposal summary
What should we do with potentially sensitive or private matters in
lilypond? I see two possible solutions:
1. Pick one person to manage private discussions.
2. Have a private mailing list with a known list of people
Am Sonntag, 24. Juli 2011, 19:41:49 schrieb Graham Percival:
If you want to avoid the countdown, then it really hinges on
point 3. That's most difficult to judge, but you have git push
access because you've been around for a while. You should have a
fairly good idea of what I like to comment
This passes regtests without change. It is intended for discussion and
experimentation. Don't put it on a countdown.
parser.yy: rearrange to allow more lenient use of music arguments for music
functions.
This change may be somewhat contentious: it removes a lot of
opportunities for syntax
Seems like using Supersede on Gmane was a bit optimistic. Forgot the
link location: URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/4815052
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
This passes regtests without change. It is intended for discussion and
experimentation. Don't put it on a countdown.
parser.yy:
Joe: redundant lines removed.
Interesting thing happens when i compare regtests: i see a difference in
part-combine-tuplet-end.ly, which is completely unrelated to tremolos.
Even funnier, my branch compiled this test better than master...
Perhaps i should've built from scratch.
BTW, should i
65 matches
Mail list logo
