"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:26:57 -0700, wrote:
>
>> The intent of the examples is to show equivalences. Of course, only one
>> of the equivalences is ever needed. At this section of the manual, more
>> complex/abstract constructs that are _better_ solved using <> and/or
>>
On 2012/06/02 07:28:37, dak wrote:
> music = \relative c'' { e16 d c d }
> { f'4 <>\marcato \music r <>^"smorz." \mp \> \music <>\! }
Incidentally, something like
atLast =
#(define-music-function (parser location post music)
(ly:event? ly:music?)
(let ((final
(fold-some-mu
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/11001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/11001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode89
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:89: (f
Colin Hall writes:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:47:36PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:04:55PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:56:33PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In the hope that it might help others, see attached diary of my
>> >
Graham,
I've just created fresh binaries with GUB. Previously [1] you suggested
uploading these to create an unofficial release.
Still of interest?
Cheers,
Colin.
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-05/msg00446.html
--
Colin Hall
_
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Hall"
To: "Graham Percival"
Cc: "Lilypond Dev"
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 12:30 PM
Subject: GUB unofficial release still relevant?
Graham,
I've just created fresh binaries with GUB. Previously [1] you suggested
uploading these to create an uno
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:03:04AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> I've done a little more work, see attached.
>
> Any suggestions on how to debug the netpbm script would be welcome.
right. Oops, I'd forgotten about this until just now:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2184
That's
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:18PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>
> I've just created fresh binaries with GUB. Previously [1] you suggested
> uploading these to create an unofficial release.
>
> Still of interest?
As a general note, yes. Right at the moment with 2.16 hopefully
in three days, I thi
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:44:53PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:18PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> >
> > I've just created fresh binaries with GUB. Previously [1] you suggested
> > uploading these to create an unofficial release.
> >
> > Still of interest?
>
> As a
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>
> Have you got the regtest comparison working?
> - Original Message - From: "Colin Hall"
>
> To: "Graham Percival"
> Cc: "Lilypond Dev"
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 12:30 PM
> Subject: GUB unofficial release still relev
That GUB build just finished, including the docs, and I saw a slew of rsync
invocations near the end of the build:
rsync --delay-updates --progress
/home/colin/gub/uploads/lilypond-2.15.39-2.linux-x86.sh
gra...@lilypond.org:/var/www/lilypond/download/binaries/linux-x86
rsync --delay-updates --
On 2012/06/02 09:56:57, dak wrote:
What consistency?
For consistency with the rest of the LilyPond documentation.
Can you point to a coding standard or rationale for LilyPond
regarding only using @ref?
Yes.
CG 5.4.2: To create links, use @ref{} if the link is within the same
manual.
And
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:07:18PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>
> That GUB build just finished, including the docs, and I saw a slew of rsync
> invocations near the end of the build:
>
>
> Er, did that just update the main website by any chance?
no, you don't have a login. But I thought that st
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Hall"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Colin Hall" ; "Graham Percival"
; "Lilypond Dev"
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: GUB unofficial release still relevant?
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
Have you got th
tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com writes:
> On 2012/06/02 09:56:57, dak wrote:
>
>> What consistency?
>
> For consistency with the rest of the LilyPond documentation.
>
>> Can you point to a coding standard or rationale for LilyPond
>> regarding only using @ref?
>
> Yes.
>
> CG 5.4.2: To create links,
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:59:19PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> > On 2012/06/02 09:56:57, dak wrote:
> >
> >> Can you point to a coding standard or rationale for LilyPond
> >> regarding only using @ref?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > CG 5.4.2: To create links, use @
+1 for Graham The Organizational Overlord :-)
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Colin Hall"
> >On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >>Have you got the regtest comparison working?
> >
> >How can I tell?
>
> Try opening the html files in Firefox an
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:13:12PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> http://lilypond.org/test/v2.15.39-1/compare-v2.15.38-1/index.html
Good, I'd expect them to be identical.
> The only difference is that the Lilypond website says:
>
> 1045 below threshold
>
> 2027 unchanged
>
> whereas my GUB output
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:55:20PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:44:53PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:18PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just created fresh binaries with GUB. Previously [1] you suggested
> > > uploading these
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:47:38PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:04:55PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> > It would be really nice if we could identify+fix any links
> > to Jan's version, to avoid other people getting caught by this
> > trap.
>
> I find:
>
> http://l
LGTM, push to staging now.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6280044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Hall"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Graham Percival" ; "Lilypond Dev"
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: GUB unofficial release still relevant?
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message -
Fro
Reviewers: Graham Percival,
Message:
On 2012/06/02 15:43:45, Graham Percival wrote:
LGTM, push to staging now.
Done.
I'll push directly next time, if that's fine with you.
closed
Description:
news: RC 2.15.39 withdrawn
add news item and move some news to old news.
Please review this at htt
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:50:03PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>
> Hmm. I get "no previous results to compare with". Could you let me
> know exactly what you've got in your gub/regtests directory, please?
gperciva@gperciva-desktop:~/src/gub (master)$ pwd
/home/gperciva/src/gub
gperciva@gperciva-d
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:50:03PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: "Colin Hall"
> >>>On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>
> Have you got the regtest comparison wor
Graham Percival writes:
> - Installing Regtests into LilyDev and Sat Afternoon Session
> I believe that the perl+tar problems are fixed on my version of
> gub. It would be really nice if we could identify+fix any links
> to Jan's version, to avoid other people getting caught by this
> tra
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:28:46PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:55:20PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:44:53PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:18PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've just created fr
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.charltonhall.eclipse.co.uk/
>
> That's the space I get with my ISP account so bandwidth (cost) might
> be an issue. Would be nice if someone could mirror it so somewhere
> more robust/cheaper.
Ok. Alternately, you
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.charltonhall.eclipse.co.uk/
>>
>> That's the space I get with my ISP account so bandwidth (cost) might
>> be an issue. Would be nice if someone could mirror it so somewhere
>> more rob
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:37:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Ok. Alternately, you could only put up a few binaries (say,
> > darwin-x86, mingw, linux-x86, and linux-64). Also, advertizing it
> > on lilypond-user as unofficial binaries will probably get you
> > between 10 and 100 downloads i
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:09:37 -0700, wrote:
On 2012/06/02 07:28:37, dak wrote:
It would seem that _trailing_ <> are not really something we should
lightly suggest since it is unknown what their articulations will
attach themselves to.
I suggested it weightily.
The notations attached to <> ar
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
To: "Lilypond Dev"
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: GUB unofficial release still relevant?
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
See:
http://www.charltonhall.eclipse.co.uk/
That's the space I get
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:09:37 -0700, wrote:
>
>> On 2012/06/02 07:28:37, dak wrote:
>>
>> It would seem that _trailing_ <> are not really something we should
>> lightly suggest since it is unknown what their articulations will
>> attach themselves to.
>>
>
> I suggested it
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:33:24PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>
> To: "Lilypond Dev"
> >If anybody else wants to chime in and offer hosting, of course
> >that would be quite appreciated.
>
> I'm personally not convinced this is worth doing.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:33:24PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival"
>
> To: "Lilypond Dev"
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: GUB unofficial release still relevant?
>
>
> >On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Colin Hall w
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > Alternately, you may want to take a look at improving GUB
> > yourself, especially since that's how this started. :)
>
> +1
Do you mean these:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:14:37PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > Graham Percival writes:
> > > Alternately, you may want to take a look at improving GUB
> > > yourself, especially since that's how this started. :)
> >
> > +1
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:42:36 -0700, David Kastrup wrote:
if the next note starts with a dynamic, the "smorz." will merge into
that dynamic which is not wanted for.
Presumably because the hairpin is a \> and the next note is \f in this case.
Often, though, we do want a \> to continue into a
Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
> Friendly reminder -- since there are no Type-Critical issues
> either open or in the "issues to verify", 2.15.39 is aimed to
> become 2.16.0 in one week.
Since then, we found a couple regressions.
However, when I tried version 2.15.39 on some piano m
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:42:36 -0700, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> if the next note starts with a dynamic, the "smorz." will merge into
>> that dynamic which is not wanted for.
>
> Presumably because the hairpin is a \> and the next note is \f in this
> case. Often, though, w
41 matches
Mail list logo
