Re: Doc: Add example of extending glissandi over repeats (2591) (issue 6814115)
LGTM by reading only http://codereview.appspot.com/6814115/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
Il 09/11/2012 18:55, Janek Warchoł ha scritto: - split the remainder of the page between features for hire (one-time bounties) and continuous support (giving money to an individual without setting what exactly he has to do, just to enable him to continue his work - what we do with David now). I suggest putting a link to the list of bounties: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2q=label%3ABounty ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com writes: Il 09/11/2012 18:55, Janek Warchoł ha scritto: - split the remainder of the page between features for hire (one-time bounties) and continuous support (giving money to an individual without setting what exactly he has to do, just to enable him to continue his work - what we do with David now). I suggest putting a link to the list of bounties: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2q=label%3ABounty I think the idea of Bounty was pretty much retired. I don't think any have been proposed in the last year, and it is very much questionable that any remaining listed bounties will be easily collectable. I tried collecting on a number of low-hanging or not so low-hanging bounties probably a year ago or so, and it has been my experience that the process of trying to collect the bounties (even though I eventually managed to get about 75%) amounted to a disproportionate effort and, quite worse, was a major turnoff. It turns out that even a bounty of €25 or similar throws many people into bill-paying mode where they question every achievement by default, delay payment until they have have found time and leisure to corroborate that the stuff does what they think they wanted to have (partly different from what they specified they wanted to have) when they were still using LilyPond etc etc. So it has been at least my experience that with regard to the balance of motivating and demotivating experiences, the bounty system was not working out. I'd recommend against linking to the remaining bounties. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
Il 10/11/2012 11:04, David Kastrup ha scritto: Federico Brunifedel...@gmail.com writes: I suggest putting a link to the list of bounties: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2q=label%3ABounty I think the idea of Bounty was pretty much retired. I don't think any have been proposed in the last year, and it is very much questionable that any remaining listed bounties will be easily collectable. Collecting money is an issue, I understand. Maybe a developer who decides to work on a bounty feature could contact people who offered money and set some conditions before the work starts. For example, I know that two developers (that I respect and trust) will probably work, in the coming months, on a feature really important for me. I'd be happy to pay in advance and whatever the final results will be. Which means: even if they won't be able to cover all the possible situations, I'd still be happy to see implemented all the basic features related to that area. I tried collecting on a number of low-hanging or not so low-hanging bounties probably a year ago or so, and it has been my experience that the process of trying to collect the bounties (even though I eventually managed to get about 75%) amounted to a disproportionate effort and, quite worse, was a major turnoff. It turns out that even a bounty of €25 or similar throws many people into bill-paying mode where they question every achievement by default, delay payment until they have have found time and leisure to corroborate that the stuff does what they think they wanted to have (partly different from what they specified they wanted to have) when they were still using LilyPond etc etc. That's sad.. Well, keeping this experience in mind, you might consider trying to work again on a bounty and ask people to accept your conditions before starting to work on it. If they accept it, fine; otherwise, it's ok anyway, at least you've tried. So it has been at least my experience that with regard to the balance of motivating and demotivating experiences, the bounty system was not working out. I'd recommend against linking to the remaining bounties. I think that any user will be happier to invest some money on a specific feature he/she really wants rather than on general development. Why wasting this opportunity? ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com writes: I think that any user will be happier to invest some money on a specific feature he/she really wants rather than on general development. Why wasting this opportunity? Because things that are easy to do very much tend to be promptly done on the user list and/or the developer list. That's really a fabulous community effort that is going on there, and it is based on an understanding of reciprocity and almost a competition in being helpful. And things that are actually hard to do are way out of the league of the typical bounty amount. So I really don't see much of a wasted opportunity here. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: 2.16.1
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:32 PM Subject: Re: 2.16.1 On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:02:04PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 5:36 PM Subject: Re: 2.16.1 I've just built 2.16.1 and will be uploading it later this evening. All seems OK except I tried to create a regtest comparison versus 2.16.0 and instead got a comparison of 2.17.6 versus 2.16.0. But you are certain that the binary itself is 2.16.1? How would it produce a comparison of 2.17.6? The binary is certainly named as 2.16.1 so I've no doubt that it is 2.16.1 - it was also built from stable/2.16 and there's not 2.17.6 code there. I'm assuming that VERSION has 2.17.6 unstable, and it does a regtest comparison with the highest numbered release - or at least says it does. I don't think this is likely to be more than an oddity. Regtests are built from the just-compiled binaries to any regtest tarballs you have in regtests/ . You evidently had a regtest/lilypond-2.16.0-test.tar.gz and -2.17.6-test- tarballs in that directory. Each tarball contains various .eps and/or signature files which are used to produce the comparisons. See the code for more details because about what's in the regtest tarballs and how they're used, because I'm not clear on it. - Graham From my experience, that's not exactly what happens. As you say, the build creates a comparison of regtests built against the current binary with any tarball in the regtests/ directory. For me, this was only 2.16.0 - I was careful to ensure this. We would then expect this output to be put in a 2.16.1 directory and labelled 2.16.1. What happened in practice was that the output was put in a 2.17.6 directory. This then killed the upload later on in the evening, since it could not find the 2.16.1 directory. I renamed it and restarted the upload, which appeared to finish correctly. I'm now going to update VERSION and hope the website updates during the day. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: 2.16.1
2012/11/9 Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net: I've just built 2.16.1 and will be uploading it later this evening. All seems OK except I tried to create a regtest comparison versus 2.16.0 and instead got a comparison of 2.17.6 versus 2.16.0. Grenouille is sending daily reports of failed builds. The message is not informative enough. Do you know what's happening? -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Issue 2946: let Lyric_combine_music_iterator only listen to rhythmic events (issue 6827056)
LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/6827056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Add LilyPond Report #28 to news (issue 6828049)
i think we add web: at the beginning of website commits. Also, i'd put this announcement below 2.16 announcement (because it's old). But i don't insist. Otherwise LGTM Janek http://codereview.appspot.com/6828049/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Applies scheme indentation according to the GNU guidelines (issue 6814080)
I've looked a bit at one random file. Looks mostly good to me. http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/diff/1/scm/define-music-display-methods.scm File scm/define-music-display-methods.scm (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/diff/1/scm/define-music-display-methods.scm#newcode111 scm/define-music-display-methods.scm:111: remember) Isn't this indent too big? http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add LilyPond Report #28 to news (issue 6828049)
Reviewers: janek,
Message:
On 2012/11/10 13:52:09, janek wrote:
i think we add web: at the beginning of website commits.
Also, i'd put this announcement below 2.16 announcement (because it's
old).
Unfortunately, the report is old, but the announcement isn't. If people
check the news regularly, we should not be pushing new items into the
middle of the list.
Description:
Add LilyPond Report #28 to news
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/6828049/
Affected files:
M Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
Index: Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
diff --git a/Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
b/Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
index
e86f40ed3d5a4d5449808a12926b7e29d2de7e65..16ebe9e78613ad25776a3f34b984c158f765afa0
100644
--- a/Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
+++ b/Documentation/web/news-front.itexi
@@ -9,6 +9,31 @@
@c used for news about the upcoming release; see CG 10.2
@newsItem
+@subsubheading The LilyPond Report #28. @emph{November 8, 2012}
+
+The @uref{http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-28, October
+issue of the @emph{LilyPond Report}} focuses on the
+@uref{http://news.lilynet.net/?LilyPond-meeting-in-Waltrop,
+meeting of LilyPond developers and users} in Waltrop, Germany last
+August. Of course, there are also some musings on LilyPond
+triggered by the release of 2.16.0 and 2.17.0 occuring from that
+venue.
+
+There are also two monthly financial reports from David Kastrup
+whose work on LilyPond is
+@uref{http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24#an_urgent_request_for_funding,
+solely paid for} by financial contributions from other developer
+and users (thank you!), and a report about experiences from
+@uref{http://scorio.com, a web-based music typesetting service}
+using LilyPond internally.
+
+Come @uref{http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-28, read
+LilyPond Report 28} now; comments and contributions are warmly
+encouraged!
+
+@newsEnd
+
+@newsItem
@subsubheading LilyPond 2.17.6 released! @emph{November 3, 2012}
We are happy to announce the release of LilyPond 2.17.6. This
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: 2.16.1
- Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 1:35 PM Subject: Re: 2.16.1 2012/11/9 Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net: I've just built 2.16.1 and will be uploading it later this evening. All seems OK except I tried to create a regtest comparison versus 2.16.0 and instead got a comparison of 2.17.6 versus 2.16.0. Grenouille is sending daily reports of failed builds. The message is not informative enough. Do you know what's happening? -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com It looks like it's a problem with Grenouille. I ran patchy this morning to merge staging and had no problem. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Cc: Benjamin CL soundsfromso...@gmail.com; LilyPond Developmet Team lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page. On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 07:07:53PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: The stats come from scripts in lilypond-extra:stats/makestats.sh but only Phil can update them. It would be nice if they were updated for every release. This requires a patch to GUB or adding well-formed copypaste command lines to the CG release checklist. - Graham I've updated the stats pages. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
2012/11/10 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: I've updated the stats pages. Some time ago I offered Graham to contribute two additional graphs. Here they are; see them in http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#authors_by_year-month -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com gitstats-add-two-graphs.diff Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
- Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca; David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; Benjamin CL soundsfromso...@gmail.com; LilyPond Developmet Team lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page. 2012/11/10 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: I've updated the stats pages. Some time ago I offered Graham to contribute two additional graphs. Here they are; see them in http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#authors_by_year-month -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com This patch would be applied to the gitstats shell script I downloaded from the authors' git repo? Are the new graphs then automatically included, or do they require an option? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
2012/11/10 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: - Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com Some time ago I offered Graham to contribute two additional graphs. Here they are; see them in http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#authors_by_year-month This patch would be applied to the gitstats shell script I downloaded from the authors' git repo? My patch applied to an old version, but I have checked latest git version from author and the only difference is line numbers. That makes the patch unable to be applied but here I attach a newer diff against very latest git version with correct line numbers . Are the new graphs then automatically included, or do they require an option? I think the patched single-file gitstats script does all by itself, so you should not have to do anything special other than running the modified script. The modified script generates the graphs by creating the appropriate .dat, .plot and .png and also modifies the HTML so that the graphs are included. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com gitstats-add-two-graphs2.diff Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2012/11/10 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: - Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com Some time ago I offered Graham to contribute two additional graphs. Here they are; see them in http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#authors_by_year-month This patch would be applied to the gitstats shell script I downloaded from the authors' git repo? My patch applied to an old version, but I have checked latest git version from author and the only difference is line numbers. That makes the patch unable to be applied Hm? Patch should be smarter than to get confused by that. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
2012/11/10 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2012/11/10 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: - Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com Some time ago I offered Graham to contribute two additional graphs. Here they are; see them in http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#authors_by_year-month This patch would be applied to the gitstats shell script I downloaded from the authors' git repo? My patch applied to an old version, but I have checked latest git version from author and the only difference is line numbers. That makes the patch unable to be applied Hm? Patch should be smarter than to get confused by that. It is easy to test how smart it is: try to apply both patches, which differ in line numbers, to the same file in http://repo.or.cz/w/gitstats.git/blob_plain/e6b30583:/gitstats (this is latest git version) -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [talk] suggestion: redesign sponsoring page.
2012/11/10 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com: It is easy to test how smart it is: try to apply both patches, which differ in line numbers, to the same file in http://repo.or.cz/w/gitstats.git/blob_plain/e6b30583:/gitstats (this is latest git version) Anyway, for your convenience, here is my patched version with the additional graphs. http://paconet.org/lilypond/gitstatsPATCHED -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Applies scheme indentation according to the GNU guidelines (issue 6814080)
Am 10.11.2012 14:59, schrieb janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: I've looked a bit at one random file. Looks mostly good to me. http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/diff/1/scm/define-music-display-methods.scm File scm/define-music-display-methods.scm (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/diff/1/scm/define-music-display-methods.scm#newcode111 scm/define-music-display-methods.scm:111: remember) Isn't this indent too big? No, it aligns to the first argument of (define*-public (duration-lily-string ...) and this follows the 'do what emacs does' guideline ;-) Regards, Marc http://codereview.appspot.com/6814080/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
