Clean.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Am 07.04.2012 01:03, schrieb Thomas Morley:
Am 6. April 2012 23:04 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 4/5/12 12:51 PM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Does it make sense to replace the definitions in bar-line.cc/span-bar.cc
with the scheme equivalents? If yes, I'd draw a patch and would include
one example for in
Am 06.04.2012 23:04, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 4/5/12 12:51 PM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Does it make sense to replace the definitions in bar-line.cc/span-bar.cc
with the scheme equivalents? If yes, I'd draw a patch and would include
one example for integrating user-defined bar lines with the new a
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 06:04:39PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>> Release candidate anyone? Or have we already had a version bump? I can
>> build it, Graham, if you're over hours.
>
> It's already building.
Sorry, guys, bad news:
- Original Message -
From: "Werner LEMBERG"
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 7:56 AM
Subject: verbosity of `make doc'
Folks,
I really appreciate that `make doc' doesn't flood the console.
However, right now I see a long line calling lilypond-book.py which
sits there for already
> We're saving stdout and sterr to log files so we can keep the
> output. Any additional info that lilypond-book prints would just be
> saved to a file instead of screen.
There are more streams available than stderr and stdout, so it would
be actually possible to save stderr and stdout from lily
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 08:56:15AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be possible, similar to automake, that the name of the
> currently processed file gets written to stdout, and that this
> behaviour is the default? In case the names are meaningless, a simple
No, because what's takin
