David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 17, 2015 8:49 AM
Should I ask at Savannah how they view the prospect of running Allura?
Are there obvious selling points over Savane? Like that there is an API
for manipulating issues?
No harm in asking. Presumably they would need to undertake its ongoing
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Greetings everybody,
here’s an itch I’ve been wanting to scratch for the past decade or so:
as a French user, having to type re instead of ré feels unnatural
(and it still does after ten years); it is not uncommon that my scores
fail to compile because I’ve inadvertently
Hi
I've now completed my assessment of Allura at SourceForge against the list of
requirements supplied by Phil. A point-by-point comparison is shown below. My
conclusion is that Allura at SourceForge is suitable for hosting our Issues DB.
There are some differences from GoogleCode, but these
v.villen...@gmail.com writes:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Greetings everybody,
here’s an itch I’ve been wanting to scratch for the past decade or so:
as a French user, having to type re instead of ré feels unnatural
(and it still does after ten years); it is not uncommon that my scores
fail to
should I do this myself?
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch counted down - please push to Staging branch
https://codereview.appspot.com/214250043/
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
On 2015/05/17 09:09:59, hanwenn wrote:
should I do this myself?
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM, mailto:pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch counted down - please push to Staging branch
https://codereview.appspot.com/214250043/
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - mailto:hanw...@gmail.com -
On 2015/05/17 22:06:10, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I strongly prefer just two input modes, \relative and \absolute,
Okay. I won't split the job to complement \relative between two
functions. That leaves the question of what to name the one function.
The proper name for this would be
Reviewers: Trevor Daniels,
Message:
On 2015/05/17 21:54:07, Trevor Daniels wrote:
But I think if are to
make this change it would also be good to say what leaving out
\relative means.
It was difficult to do this before as all the examples left it out
(apparently).
Now we can do it.
I'm not opposed to the change to explicit \relative; it avoids having to
explain why it was omitted in the examples, and makes the example code
more exactly correspond to the code obtained by clicking on the image.
But I think if are to make this change it would also be good to say what
leaving
On 2015/05/17 21:09:13, dak wrote:
At any rate, if we were to retain both \fixed and \absolute,
I strongly prefer just two input modes, \relative and \absolute, but
as I said right at the beginning:
... I'd prefer
the syntax and options [of \absolute] to parallel those of
\relative. That
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Part combiner: Ignore skips coinciding with rests within a part
Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/240790043/
Affected files (+19, -14 lines):
M input/regression/part-combine-silence-mixed.ly
M scm/part-combiner.scm
Index:
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
The two functions \fixed and \relative each convert user input into
absolute pitches.
So does \absolute. Which was its primary raison d'être.
\relative applies octave marks relative to the previous pitch; \fixed
adds octave marks to those of a fixed
https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/diff/140001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/diff/140001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode112
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:112: The
On 2015/05/17 07:36:01, Keith wrote:
On 2015/05/15 06:12:38, lemzwerg wrote:
Given that we are currently producing development
releases, I suggest that this gets implemented,
then we simply wait a few months so that people can
test it in real life, and then we do a final decision.
If we
On 2015/05/17 09:56:01, Trevor Daniels wrote:
On 2015/05/17 07:36:01, Keith wrote:
On 2015/05/15 06:12:38, lemzwerg wrote:
Given that we are currently producing development
releases, I suggest that this gets implemented,
then we simply wait a few months so that people can
test it in
On 2015/05/17 10:44:36, dak wrote:
Well, I remain unenthused about the new name. Maybe get a vote on the
user
list, with options \absolute x'', \fixed x'', \octave x''? I think
those were
pretty much the terms mentioned significantly more than once.
The proper name for this would
On 2015/05/17 08:39:00, dak wrote:
Well, with notenames like re it should have been \language
francais... I think we even had this at one time. No wait, that
was
espanol.
Yes. español is aliased to espanol, and français is now aliased to
francais in the same way.
It's actually the few
On 2015/05/17 09:44:52, Valentin Villenave wrote:
On 2015/05/17 08:39:00, dak wrote:
Well, with notenames like re it should have been \language
francais... I think we even had this at one time. No wait, that
was
espanol.
Yes. español is aliased to espanol, and français is now aliased
author Paul Morris paulwmor...@gmail.com
Tue, 5 May 2015 03:18:15 + (23:18 -0400)
committer James Lowe pkx1...@gmail.com
Sun, 17 May 2015 18:34:15 + (19:34 +0100)
commit 51aecfed170349c19e10923c9ce18773ad1786c3
and
author Paul Morris
On Sun, 17 May 2015 04:58:22 -0700, tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com wrote:
The proper name for this would \absoluteWithFixedOctaveOffset, but
that's too long and the acronym is similarly uninspiring. All three of
the proposed options appear in this name, so the question is, Which
alludes most
https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/diff/140001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/diff/140001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode112
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:112: The
Trevor Daniels wrote Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:44 AM
I've pretty well completed my assessment of Allura at SourceForge, and find
the facilities available pretty well match our needs, in fact they are
surprisingly similar to those at GoogleCode. There are some differences but
none which
On 2015/05/15 06:12:38, lemzwerg wrote:
Given that we are currently producing development
releases, I suggest that this gets implemented,
then we simply wait a few months so that people can
test it in real life, and then we do a final decision.
If we don't come back with another patch, the
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Further to this, I had a very helpful interchange today with one of
the other users at SourceForge who responded to my ticket. He
suggested exporting the text part of the DB as a JSON file, changing
all the occurrences of author: *anonymous to
David Kastrup writes:
I'll probably come up with something GOOPS-related eventually and the
closure mechanism for creating Scheme engravers will be deprecated.
You might want to be a bit careful with GOOPS
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2015-05/msg4.html
Greetings, Jan
On 2015/05/16 20:37:28, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2015/05/16 15:09:05, dak wrote:
I don't really like this one. unsmob (self) should really be
this. Using
the even less specific unsmobCallback_wrapper seems like a step in
the wrong
direction. This might call for unchecked_unsmob (should this
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:
David Kastrup writes:
I'll probably come up with something GOOPS-related eventually and the
closure mechanism for creating Scheme engravers will be deprecated.
You might want to be a bit careful with GOOPS
27 matches
Mail list logo
