On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM, wrote:
> Also, should we include
>
> Measure_counter_engraver
>
> in the Staff context by default?
>
> (it'd make documenting it simpler in the @lilypond if nothing else :) )
+1 from me :)
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mail
Le 24/10/2012 17:28, David Kastrup disait :
"Phil Holmes" writes:
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Devel"
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
"Phil Holmes" writes:
David,
I see you've done a lot of moving updates into 2.1
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
> Cc: "Devel"
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: 2.16.1
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "David Kastrup"
>>> To: "Phil Holmes"
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Devel"
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
"Phil Holmes" writes:
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Devel"
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/6762046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2012/10/24 10:07:25, dak wrote:
On 2012/10/24 09:58:12, janek wrote:
> LGTM
>
> shall the tracker issues "write doc for this"
It is not as much "write doc for this" as the function itself has its
docs
updated. It is more "update the existing docs in the manual to
reflect the
change".
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
> Cc: "Devel"
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: 2.16.1
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I see you've done a lot of moving updates into 2.16.1. When do
Hello,
On 3 October 2012 07:54, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, James wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just an FYI, I was able to download install and run LP's test file
>> with no problems, on Windows 8.x (Enterprise Edition), I am not sure
>> if that is really significant vs Stand
Reviewers: Trevor Daniels,
Message:
On 2012/10/24 14:57:28, Trevor Daniels wrote:
LGTM, but just a thought - might it be better
to override the colour so the change results in
something visible rather than just an absence of
the clef?
Trevor
Good idea.
Next patch on its way.
James
Descripti
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "Devel"
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
"Phil Holmes" writes:
David,
I see you've done a lot of moving updates into 2.16.1. When do you
expect to want a release for this?
I've asked
LGTM, but just a thought - might it be better
to override the colour so the change results in
something visible rather than just an absence of
the clef?
Trevor
http://codereview.appspot.com/6761045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.o
2012/10/24 James :
> This passes a make doc - I checked just in case - I see no reason why
> you cannot just push this one char change directly to staging.
I can't because I'm not on my laptop (until Saturday).
Could you push it for me?
Thanks
___
lily
Federico
On 23 October 2012 07:35, Federico Bruni wrote:
> While investigating issue 2266, I found this wrong link in CG.
> Find micro-patch attached
>
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
Also, should we include
Measure_counter_engraver
in the Staff context by default?
(it'd make documenting it simpler in the @lilypond if nothing else :) )
https://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
I've opened
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2924
for the Documentation in the NR
https://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>> > Ah, so this is a by-the-way fix. Can it be in a separate commit, please?
>
>> it is; I meant to note it but forgot, sorry. is there interest in pushing
>> such
>> multi-commit patches to some dev branch?
>
> If there is, people should ask. Substructuring an issue into several
> logical com
much clearer now, thanks!
LGTM
Janek
https://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Thanks for your review, Janek!
https://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/diff/10001/input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly
File input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/diff/10001/input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly#newcode6
input/regres
On 2012/10/24 10:36:52, benko.pal wrote:
[...]
> Ah, so this is a by-the-way fix. Can it be in a separate commit,
please?
it is; I meant to note it but forgot, sorry. is there interest in
pushing such
multi-commit patches to some dev branch?
If there is, people should ask. Substructurin
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Benkő Pál wrote:
>>> in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
>>> std::vector by value, not by reference to const; in this case
>>> there's no such reason, pass-by-reference works perfectly.
>>
>> Ah, so this is a by-the-way fix. Can i
I found some ambiguities in descriptions.
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/diff/10001/input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly
File input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6730044/diff/10001/input/regression/measure-counter-broken.ly#newco
>> in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
>> std::vector by value, not by reference to const; in this case
>> there's no such reason, pass-by-reference works perfectly.
>
> Ah, so this is a by-the-way fix. Can it be in a separate commit, please?
it is; I meant to not
LGTM
can you please change tenses in the commit message? Every time i see a
sentence like "\acciaccatura and \slashedGrace lose any previous setting
of Flag.stroke-style." i think that it means that *the result of the
patch* is that previous settings are lost.
I think it would be better to write
On 2012/10/24 09:58:12, janek wrote:
LGTM
shall the tracker issues "write doc for this"
It is not as much "write doc for this" as the function itself has its
docs updated. It is more "update the existing docs in the manual to
reflect the change".
and "add a regtest for this" be
added now
LGTM
shall the tracker issues "write doc for this" and "add a regtest for
this" be added now or after this patch is pushed?
(my concern is to make sure that we won't forget)
cheers,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/6744070/
___
lilypond-devel mail
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6709073/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
hi Pal,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM, wrote:
> in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
> std::vector by value, not by reference to const; in this case
> there's no such reason, pass-by-reference works perfectly.
Ah, so this is a by-the-way fix. Can it be in a se
the description LGTM (i.e. i'm ok with what you say this patch does).
I'm sorry that i don't give any feedback on the actual code, but it's
about a thousand lines of changes and i don't have time to read them :(
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/6651053/
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
