On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:22:32AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> is it correct that all fixes, regardless of its annoyance, get a `low
> priority' in case it won't become part of the next `milestone'
> release?
That's not quite correct. There's no functional difference
between Postponed, Low, an
Graham Percival wrote:
> Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
> hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
> issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
> you seriously just start working on whichever item *I* said
> was most important / most annoy
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
> > hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
> > issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
> > you seriously just
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't think `priority'* or `annoying' captures it. I
>> would label them `embarrassing', because they're holding LilyPond
>> back from looking really professional.
>
> But if nobody is work
I'm using:
OS X 10.6.2
MacPorts 1.8.1
gcc 4.2.1
XQuartz 2.3.4 (Xtools? That's an abandoned project, isn't it? I think you meant
XQuartz.)
I installed all dependencies with MacPorts.
thSoft
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://
Oh yeah, maybe you meant Xcode. Yes, I use the standard Snow Leopard Xcode,
v3.2.1.
thSoft
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009 à 22:59 +, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
> /home/trevor/lilypond-git/scripts/build/out/www_post LilyPond
> 2.13.9 ./out-www "offline"
> Mirroring...
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/home/trevor/lilypond-git/scripts/build/out/www_post", line 67,
> in
>
Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009 à 20:19 +0100, Francisco Vila a écrit :
> Thank you, now I have upgraded texi2html to v1.82 and have been able
> to complete the process.
Ah, if you used a version older than 1.82, it probably doesn't normalize
the node names the same way.
> I uncompressed it from
> If you'd entered them yourself as both Medium, or both
> Low, I wouldn't have said anything.
OK.
> - Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
> fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
> assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that
Le jeudi 10 décembre 2009 à 03:44 +, Graham Percival a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:11:20AM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> > 4 lines of Texinfo multiplied by the number of languages, which
> > completely changes the deal.
>
> It's still only a few minutes.
This can hardly be done prop
On 12/10/09 3:29 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
>> Graham Percival wrote:
>>
> But if nobody is working on fixing them, who cares what the label
> is?!?!
>
> The low vs. medium priority has historically been a mixture of
> "bug s
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Wouldn't it be
helpful if I could check the priority flag of the bugs to find
something I should work on more urgently than other things? For
example, the Savannah bugzilla allows users to `rate' bugs. The
higher the score, the more people would like to have this bug fixed
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > - Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
> > fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
> > assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that nobody
> > pays attention t
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 03:09:28PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> I was just answering a request from Dénes, I never proposed to implement
> myself in the coming days, but it seemed important enough to me to bring
> this publicly.
Ok. Let's just agree to disagree: you think it's important, but I
> If you would like to change the priority between postponed, low, and
> medium issues -- either raising the priority of a postponed or low
> one, or lowering the priority of a low or medium one -- go ahead.
I'll eventually do that for my own bugs. However, it's basically the
job of the bugmeist
> 1. Severity of the Bug.
> 2. Probability of occurrence of the bug.
> 3. Difficulty of working around.
Very nice!
> Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
> to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
> this thread in case we ever want to serio
Hi Ian,
LGTM, apart from some formatting issues and a few incorrect \version
numbers.
Can you sort out the naming of the new regression tests? For
consistency with the existing test, I'd advise amending them as follows:
hara-kiri-drumstaff.ly
hara-kiri-rhythmicstaff.ly
hara-kiri-tabstaff.ly
C
2009/12/8 Graham Percival :
> I was amused by the recent "punctuation fix" commit: I've always
> considered the CG to be "the guide for contributors", or "the
> contributors's [sic] guide". In modern English, the latter is
> abbreviated (condensed?) into "the contributors' guide".
Easily amused,
2009/12/9 Harmath Dénes :
> Apparently, this got discussed in:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-us...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg28916.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-us...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg29280.html
>
> but without solution. Can this be filed as a bug? Is there a workaround?
H
2009/12/8 Werner LEMBERG :
>
> See issue #926. This makes the Dynamics context quite useless.
Fixed in git.
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
2009/12/9 Trevor Daniels :
>
> Mark Polesky wrote Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:05 AM
>>
>
>> Wow. It's been just over 94 (and a half) *days* since my last transmission
>> here. If > anyone is curious, I am still alive,
>
> Hi Mark - good to hear it ;)
+1
I was beginning to wonder whether you'd
Neil Puttock wrote:
> No objections here.
Okay, I'll write a patch. But I just thought of something.
Should the `espressivo' script also be de-quantized, since
it's (in some ways) an extension of the accent sign? I'm
not aware of any mention of the `espressivo' sign in any
notation reference boo
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:56:47PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Okay, I'll write a patch. But I just thought of something.
> Should the `espressivo' script also be de-quantized, since
> it's (in some ways) an extension of the accent sign? I'm
> not aware of any mention of the `espressivo' sign in
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:44:59PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
> > to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
> > this thread in case we ever want to seriously approach this in the
> > future
>
> I s
Graham Percival wrote:
> It was added as a short-cut hack for
> << c1 {s4\< s s\> s\!} >>
So then I assume you're okay with me de-quantizing the
espressivo as well. Is the attached patch okay to apply, or
do I need to do anything described in CG 8.7 "Adding or
modifying features"? Should I add
>> See issue #926. This makes the Dynamics context quite useless.
>
> Fixed in git.
Thanks!
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
26 matches
Mail list logo
