Works good for me.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5934050/diff/7001/lily/stem.cc
File lily/stem.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5934050/diff/7001/lily/stem.cc#newcode131
lily/stem.cc:131: Real stem_beg = internal_calc_stem_begin_position (me,
false);
I'm assuming something within calc
http://codereview.appspot.com/5934050/diff/7001/lily/stem.cc
File lily/stem.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5934050/diff/7001/lily/stem.cc#newcode131
lily/stem.cc:131: Real stem_beg = internal_calc_stem_begin_position (me,
false);
On 2012/04/02 07:42:55, Keith wrote:
I'm assuming some
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:32 PM, wrote:
> Reviewers: Julien Rioux, Graham Percival, dak,
>
> Message:
> Please review
>
> Description:
> These files used what appears to be a deprecated syntax to invoke
> lilypond-book, resulting in these warnings:
>
> lilypond-book.py: warning: deprecated ly-opti
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5967060/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: "Julien Rioux"
To: ; ;
; ; ;
> A snippet with a deprecated option, triggering compatibility mode:
>
> -\lilypond[11pt,fragment]{c' e' g'}
> +\lilypond[staffsize=11,fragment]{c' e' g'}
>
> \end{document}
This change to tex-compatibility-mode.tex makes no sen
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Julien Rioux"
> To: ; ;
> ; ; ;
>
>
>> > A snippet with a deprecated option, triggering compatibility mode:
>> >
>> > -\lilypond[11pt,fragment]{c' e' g'}
>> > +\lilypond[staffsize=11,fragment]{c' e' g'}
>>
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> It's just the opposite - the use of technical details shows a lack of
> clarity of understanding, as it attaches importance to things that may
> change depending on the implementation as opposed to design. Stay on the
> design level.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
> wrote:
>> It's just the opposite - the use of technical details shows a lack of
>> clarity of understanding, as it attaches importance to things that may
>> change depending on the implement
Am 2. April 2012 01:36 schrieb Thomas Morley :
> Am 1. April 2012 22:23 schrieb Phil Holmes :
>> From: "Thomas Morley"
>>> I downloaded todays LSR-tarball and removed all unnecessary headers
>>> and versions manually.
>>> Compiling-tests showed no problems.
>>> I'd like to create a new tarball and
Sorry about the top post. Windows mail is sometimes a pain. I'll do
fretted-string-harmonics... to screech-boink.
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Morley"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "David Nalesnik" ; "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: Re:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Sorry about the top post. Windows mail is sometimes a pain. I'll do
> fretted-string-harmonics... to screech-boink.
>
>
> Phil Holmes
>
>
>
> Attached the tarball with the missing files from
> `Ducumentatione/snippets/new/'
> I'll pick
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> Hello folks,
> you may have noticed that there **isn't** a new LilyPond Report out today.
>
> Nope. None at all. Sorry.
>
> And if anything, you will certainly **not** find it here:
>
> http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-25
>
>
LGTM
Trevor
http://codereview.appspot.com/5967060/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Valentin, you sneaky bastard! Tried to deceive us, huh? But i see
the new LilyPond Report announced on Lily website, mwahahahaha!
http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-25&lang=en
Janek ;-)
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
h
Well, I must say that I don't understand what I'm expected to do. Could you
please explain me once more and say also what "Apparently replaced by R
5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary" means? Especially "add issue
*nbr*to summary".
Łukasz
On 2 April 2012 03:53, Colin Campbell wrote:
> The it
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Valentin, you sneaky bastard! Tried to deceive us, huh? But i see
> the new LilyPond Report announced on Lily website, mwahahahaha!
> http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-25&lang=en
> Janek ;-)
Yeah, that's me all right :-)
Cheers
Hi,
Seba just informed me that the "Contemporary vibrato" snippet is not compiling.
(1) I tested again compiling the whole lsr with:
#!/bin/bash
for LILYFILE in *.ly
do
STEM=$(basename "$LILYFILE" .ly)
echo "running $LILYFILE..."
lilypond --format=png -ddelete-intermediate-files "$LILYFIL
On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:26 AM, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Seba just informed me that the "Contemporary vibrato" snippet is not
> compiling.
>
Contemporary vibrato is a total hack (it was one of the 1st things I wrote in
LilyPond). It's a miracle that it ever compiled in the first place. I
Am 3. April 2012 01:51 schrieb m...@apollinemike.com :
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:26 AM, Thomas Morley wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Seba just informed me that the "Contemporary vibrato" snippet is not
>> compiling.
>>
>
> Contemporary vibrato is a total hack (it was one of the 1st things I wrote in
> LilyPo
On 12-04-02 04:18 PM, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
Well, I must say that I don't understand what I'm expected to
do. Could you please explain me once more and say also what
"Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary"
means? Especially "add issue *nbr* to summary".
Łukasz
On
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:06:37AM +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > Contemporary vibrato is a total hack (it was one of the 1st things I wrote
> > in LilyPond). It's a miracle that it ever compiled in the first place. I
> > have a 2.15-friendly version I've been using lying around somewhere that
21 matches
Mail list logo
