----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca>
To: "Patrick McCarty" <pnor...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 1294 - Lyric ties
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:32:21PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Graham Percival
<gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>
> We have two ways of making it not a Critical issue:
> 1) make the output the same. If that means fiddling with the
>
> 2) metaphorically look our users in the eye and tell them that we
> @item Lyric ties are no longer supported.
>
> But as far as releases go, that's the story.
It wasn't my intent to be controversial with my assessment of the
situation. Sorry.
Oh, I didn't take this as controversial. And I wanted the chance
to point out that documenting that "X is no longer supported" is a
perfectly valid way of getting 2.14 out the door, for any X. You
have absolutely nothing to apologize for!
Cheers,
- Graham
TBH, I'd be disappointed if this issue prevented a release of 2.14. I think
it's a regression, but I also think it's a minor feature, and the
alternatives are acceptable: stick with 2.12 if you really need lyric ties;
or update if you can live with lyric ties that look a little odd. However,
I do believe we shouldn't consign it to the heap of priority-high issues
that'll never get looked at. My guess is that Graham won't like this
suggestion, but I'd like to accept Patrick's offer to look at this as a
serious issue, but I don't think we should raise it as critical-release
blocking. If Patrick can't see a way of fixing it, we go with option 2.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
