Re: Postscript printer errors with rounded barlines?
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jan Warchoł wrote: > >> I'm not experienced with PostScript, but i have an impression that >> this may be related to an issue discussed earlier - see here >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-07/msg00485.html >> and here >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2007-07/msg00072.html >> I see that something about draw_round_box was said there... > > I think this is an other issue. Due to rounding, PDF viewers can err > the placement of the barline by a pixel. This is insolvable, as there > is no way to hint that the barline should coincide with the staffline, > yet we need to go the end of the barline to get the correct effect in > the corners in staves. > > The one-pixel error is very noticeable on-screen due to > low-resolution, but on a 1200dpi printer, a single dot error is about > 0.02 mm, ie. not noticeable. I can assure you this is the same issue and not a rounding error. I've also found a way to reliably reproduce the problem, and a work-around. I've always been frustrated that my printed output has these huge bar lines, while the on-screen preview (evince on Ubuntu) looks fine. I've found that if I preview in evince (where it looks good), select File->Print and print to a .ps file, then open that .ps file in evince, the bar lines have become obnoxiously fat again. The work-around is to change /draw_round_box in ps/music-drawing-routines.ps as indicated in prior emails to avoid rectstroke with a 0.0 linewidth, the behavior of which is device dependent. After applying that fix tonight, I have for the first time produce printed (on paper) bar lines thinner than 1pt, and I am very happy. Now, if I can just find a way to left-align the first lyrics in each system I'll have nothing left to complain about. :) -- Todd ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On 16/03/2012 5:16 PM, Julien Rioux wrote: There are a few organisations interesting for lilypond hackers: inkscape (to learn about svg), closure (to learn a scheme-like language), buildbot (could be helpful but we already have the gran unified builder). libreoffice (improve the lilypond plugin), wikimedia (lilypond plugin again) -- Julien ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GNU accepted for GSOC (was: application has been rejected)
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:16:10PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: > I'll contact them asking to add us to their umbrella. Any suggestions > before i do this? Prepare a blurb in the same format as their existing ones. > Shall i talk with them about the number of > students' slots (i guess we could ask for 2 slots)? No, I think that would be a bit rude. IIRC last year they had 6 students; we cannot claim that lilypond is as important as 33% of GNU. Given the importance of some of those other projects (autotools, linux-libre-firmware), I think we would be lucky to get one. (granted, I think lilypond is more important than some of the other projects on that list, but it's just possible that I'm biased in some way) Just send an email asking to be added to the list and hope for the best. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: volunteer for patchy new-patches
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 05:28:21PM -0400, Julien Rioux wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 4:55 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> >... although apparently that doesn't include a link to the actual
> >code. huh.
> >https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra
>
> No?
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy#Installing-patchy
oh, huh. My eyes skipped over it because it wasn't blue.
Anybody feel like wrapping that in a @uref{} ? If so, please push
directly to staging.
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: volunteer for patchy new-patches
On 16/03/2012 4:55 PM, Graham Percival wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:52:52PM +0100, Marek Klein wrote: I can do it, I think (almost every day). Great! Here's the link to get started: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ... although apparently that doesn't include a link to the actual code. huh. https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra - Graham No? http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy#Installing-patchy -- Julien ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
Carl, On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Julien Rioux wrote: > There should be a possibility to email/chat with them about the application > process and how they come to this decision. who shall do this - you or me? Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On 16/03/2012 4:45 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 3/16/12 11:44 AM, "no-re...@google-melange.appspotmail.com" wrote: Thank you for submitting "LilyPond" organization application to Google Summer of Code 2012. Unfortunately, we were unable to accept your organization's application at this time. We received many more applications for the program than we are able to accommodate, and we would encourage you to reapply for future instances of the program. Best regards, Google Open Source Programs As you can see, we did not qualify for GSOC this year. No!! :( :( :( That's all they wrote? No feedback on our application anywhere? There should be a possibility to email/chat with them about the application process and how they come to this decision. This would be the best indication for next year. -- Julien ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On 16/03/2012 4:54 PM, Graham Percival wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Graham Percival wrote: It might be good to wait a week to see what projects were accepted, http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/accepted_orgs/google/gsoc2012 ? Somebody on another venue pointed out that it'll take a few hours or days for the complete list to show up; at that time, it was only showing the first 30% of accepted projects. It's only showing projects that have filled up their landing page on google-melange.com There are a few organisations interesting for lilypond hackers: inkscape (to learn about svg), closure (to learn a scheme-like language), buildbot (could be helpful but we already have the gran unified builder). -- Julien ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
GNU accepted for GSOC (was: application has been rejected)
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 3/16/12 11:44 AM, "no-re...@google-melange.appspotmail.com" > wrote: > >>Thank you for submitting "LilyPond" organization application to Google >>Summer of Code 2012. >>Unfortunately, we were unable to accept your organization's application >>at this time. >>We received many more applications for the program than we are able to >>accommodate, >>and we would encourage you to reapply for future instances of the program. some good news: http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/org/google/gsoc2012/gnu I'll contact them asking to add us to their umbrella. Any suggestions before i do this? Shall i talk with them about the number of students' slots (i guess we could ask for 2 slots)? cheers this time, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: volunteer for patchy new-patches
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:52:52PM +0100, Marek Klein wrote: > > I can do it, I think (almost every day). Great! Here's the link to get started: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/patchy ... although apparently that doesn't include a link to the actual code. huh. https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:45:05PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > If we are serious about doing this next year, I think we need to develop a > > stronger website around GSOC. As I read the requirements, it appears to > > me that to be competitive we need to have a more fully-developed > > infrastructure. > > I agree. As i was in the middle of the whole thing, i suppose i don't > have enough perspective; FWIW, I think it's something like 20% of project applications are accepted. > the only thing that comes to my mind at the > moment is that our CG is a bit messy and he patch procedures should be > more automated and unified, and the whole process described more > clearly than it is now. > Can you share your thoughts? That's pretty much it. I'd split it into a few separate tasks, though: 1. what are the pain points involved in experienced developers contributing to lilypond? Fix those first -- making it a more fun process might keep experienced developers around longer, but also anything that bugs us is likely to annoy or confuse new contributors. git-cl is the biggest contender here, along with patch management in general. 2. does the CG accurately reflect our current process? hint: it doesn't. The "quick start" description is flawed (there's something off about the printed stuff about lily-git.tcl), and even chapter 1 is inaccurate (it suggests that we have a "mentoring" program, which frankly we don't). 3. once the above two points are nailed down -- which will likely take 3-6 months -- *then* I think it's worth inviting/begging somebody new to start contributing as a programmer, *with* a dedicated mentor who will specifically find+fix pain points in that process. > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: > > It might be good to wait a week to see what projects were > > accepted, > > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/accepted_orgs/google/gsoc2012 ? Somebody on another venue pointed out that it'll take a few hours or days for the complete list to show up; at that time, it was only showing the first 30% of accepted projects. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: volunteer for patchy new-patches
2012/3/16 Graham Percival > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:00:48PM +0100, Marek Klein wrote: > > Hello, > > > > 2012/3/16 Graham Percival > > > > > ... You run a script, if it finishes > > > then you look at some pictures and then say "nope, no change to > > > the pictures". Once you have the script set up -- which is easier > > > than the patchy staging-merge, BTW -- it's easier than being a bug > > > squad member! > > > ... > > > > How often does it have to be done? At what time?... > > Once a day would be good, but it doesn't always need to be the > same person. I mean, you could do it twice a week or something, > with other people doing it on the other days? > > - Graham > I can do it, I think (almost every day). Marek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 3/16/12 11:44 AM, "no-re...@google-melange.appspotmail.com" > wrote: > >>Thank you for submitting "LilyPond" organization application to Google >>Summer of Code 2012. >>Unfortunately, we were unable to accept your organization's application >>at this time. >>We received many more applications for the program than we are able to >>accommodate, >>and we would encourage you to reapply for future instances of the program. >>Best regards, >> Google Open Source Programs > > As you can see, we did not qualify for GSOC this year. No!! :( :( :( That's all they wrote? No feedback on our application anywhere? > If we are serious about doing this next year, I think we need to develop a > stronger website around GSOC. As I read the requirements, it appears to > me that to be competitive we need to have a more fully-developed > infrastructure. > > If we really want to do this, we should probably start talking about next > year now. I agree. As i was in the middle of the whole thing, i suppose i don't have enough perspective; the only thing that comes to my mind at the moment is that our CG is a bit messy and he patch procedures should be more automated and unified, and the whole process described more clearly than it is now. Can you share your thoughts? On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > It might be good to wait a week to see what projects were > accepted, http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/accepted_orgs/google/gsoc2012 ? no cheers this time :( Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
volunteer for patchy new-patches
I think it's high time for somebody else to run the new-patches test. For this task, David is ridiculously overqualified, but his laptop is pretty underqualified. That combination makes him almost the worst person to run this task. I'm hoping that this won't end up with James doing it; IMO even James is overqualified to be running patchy new-patches. But maybe that would be ok for a week or two, in order to catch some more "gotchas" in the script and docs, then pass it on to another person. Maybe one of the bug squad members? NB: this is *not* a review, nor does it require any knowledge of lilypond programming at all. You run a script, if it finishes then you look at some pictures and then say "nope, no change to the pictures". Once you have the script set up -- which is easier than the patchy staging-merge, BTW -- it's easier than being a bug squad member! On a more general note, I've love it if we could start foisting off some more development/maintenace tasks onto the current bug squad members, and start recruiting some new bug squad members to replace the existing ones. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 05:53:57PM +, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 3/16/12 11:44 AM, "no-re...@google-melange.appspotmail.com" > wrote: > >Unfortunately, we were unable to accept your organization's application > >at this time. > > If we are serious about doing this next year, I think we need to develop a > stronger website around GSOC. As I read the requirements, it appears to > me that to be competitive we need to have a more fully-developed > infrastructure. > > If we really want to do this, we should probably start talking about next > year now. It might be good to wait a week to see what projects were accepted, then compare our current GSoC website to theirs. What do they have that we lack? There are obviously things like "previous GSoC history", "publicity in general", "usefulness and appeal to a wide range of users", but what differences are there on the project websites themselves? That said, I think that improving our development infrastructure in general is always a good thing, and there are many ways this can be improved if/when people want to work on it. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
On 3/16/12 11:44 AM, "no-re...@google-melange.appspotmail.com" wrote: >Thank you for submitting "LilyPond" organization application to Google >Summer of Code 2012. >Unfortunately, we were unable to accept your organization's application >at this time. >We received many more applications for the program than we are able to >accommodate, >and we would encourage you to reapply for future instances of the program. >Best regards, > Google Open Source Programs As you can see, we did not qualify for GSOC this year. If we are serious about doing this next year, I think we need to develop a stronger website around GSOC. As I read the requirements, it appears to me that to be competitive we need to have a more fully-developed infrastructure. If we really want to do this, we should probably start talking about next year now. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
