2008/6/10 Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Valentin,
>
> I may be wrong (after all, you're the bugmeister), but I think you are using
> status codes differently than they have been used in the past.
>
You're welcome to ask, I'm (still) kind of new at this.
Graham, can you confirm the fol
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Issue attribute updates:
>> Status: Verified
>>
>
>
> Valentin,
>
> I may be wrong (after all, you're the bugmeister), but I think you are using
> status codes differently than they have been used in the pa
> -Original Message-
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: Carl D. Sorensen
> Cc: bug-lilypond@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Bug status
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Carl D. Sorensen
> <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:29:09 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/10 Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Valentin,
> >
> > I may be wrong (after all, you're the bugmeister), but I think you
> > are using status codes differently than they have been used in the
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > > Rehearsal-marks.html
> > >
> > > Yes, it's exactly the same.
> >
> > Take a look at the regression test for part combining. Hopefully that
> > makes it clear what part combining should look like.
>
> I don't understand.. did you reply to the wrong message? this d
