LSTGM
https://codereview.appspot.com/35370043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if
the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so
it's not making things worse. I suggest to push this patch, and then
work on making
On 2013/12/01 09:16:14, Keith wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, mailto:janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even
if
the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so
it's not making things worse. I
Hello,
*Countdown – December 4th – 06:00 GMT*
- Original Message -
From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM
Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release!
That's strange - I did the release as close to the standard way as I
2013/12/1 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net:
- Original Message - From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM
Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
Please add a tag for the 2.17.96 release!
That's strange - I did the
2013/12/1 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
2013/12/1 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net:
- Original Message - From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM
Subject: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
Please add a tag for the
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
2013/12/1 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
2013/12/1 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net:
- Original Message - From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:42 AM
Subject: tag for
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/34870044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM
thanks, James!
https://codereview.appspot.com/24180044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM!
https://codereview.appspot.com/34910044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM (just a quick look)
https://codereview.appspot.com/33930043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: Keith,
Message:
On 2013/11/30 05:56:50, Keith wrote:
Looks good.
Repeat bars look fine (as they do in Drum Staff).
The book by Kurt Stone happens to have some bar-lines in single-line
percussion
staves that are as tall as a 4/4 time-signature. Other examples in
the same
I very much like the simplification in the user interface!
If i understand correctly, this function will overwrite beamExceptions
with the pattern extracted from the music.
Would it be possible to instead have a function \addBeamException that
would take just one pattern and _add it_ to the
Reviewers: janek, Graham Percival,
Message:
On 2013/12/01 12:32:34, janek wrote:
I very much like the simplification in the user interface!
If i understand correctly, this function will overwrite beamExceptions
with the
pattern extracted from the music.
No. It converts the given music into
Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not
present on the master branch (because it's in the stable branch):
050744bbb706525840a3014cd72b06fde945fa4d
OK.
Yes, I have it here as well.
Hmm. So why do we have
commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95
Author:
- Original Message -
From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: d...@gnu.org
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not
present on the master branch
Hmm. So why do we have
commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95
Author: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Date: Sun Nov 24 22:05:16 2013 +
Release: bump VERSION.
in the `master' branch? This looks incorrect to me, given that we
currently derive 2.17.9X tarballs from
- Original Message -
From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: m...@philholmes.net
Cc: d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
Hmm. So why do we have
commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95
On 2013/12/01 09:31:20, dak wrote:
\fontsize does, but \small, \large, \huge, \super (!) all do an
override to
font-size which does _not_ affect baseline-skip in contrast to the
markup
command \fontsize changing everything in concert.
We know that, David.
See above were we considered It
the VERSION_DEVEL is only used for text entries on the website, I
believe.
Ah, OK. This was my missing link.
Builds from stable/2.18 will be version 2.17.97. So I think it's
right that the tag for 2.17.96 is also in stable/2.18?
The tag for 2.17.96 should *only* be in 2.18 – it was my
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
Forget that: it seems that the tag already exists, it's just not
present on the master branch (because it's in the stable branch):
050744bbb706525840a3014cd72b06fde945fa4d
OK.
Yes, I have it here as well.
Hmm. So why do we have
commit
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
the VERSION_DEVEL is only used for text entries on the website, I
believe.
Ah, OK. This was my missing link.
Builds from stable/2.18 will be version 2.17.97. So I think it's
right that the tag for 2.17.96 is also in stable/2.18?
The tag for 2.17.96
23 matches
Mail list logo
