On 2012/10/23 19:45:15, dak wrote:
On 2012/10/23 19:05:09, marc wrote:
Hey, that was quick! Thanks for solving this issue - LGTM!
Well, there is no regtest and no documentation, so it is not like
there is
nothing left to do.
That's right – we had this discussion before concerning new
On 2012/10/23 23:22:03, J_lowe wrote:
One typo so, as we need to fix this, I also included a minor grammar
change.
Otherwise LGTM.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6742061/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right):
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/
hi Pal,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM, benko@gmail.com wrote:
in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
std::vectorGrob_info 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
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6709073/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
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 mailing
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 or
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
in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
std::vectorGrob_info 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
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):
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com wrote:
in C++ there should be a good reason to pass complex structures like
std::vectorGrob_info 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
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.
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
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
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 commits is good
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
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
Federico
On 23 October 2012 07:35, Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com wrote:
While investigating issue 2266, I found this wrong link in CG.
Find micro-patch attached
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
2012/10/24 James pkx1...@gmail.com:
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
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
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
David,
I see you've done a lot of moving updates into
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
Hello,
On 3 October 2012 07:54, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, James pkx1...@gmail.com 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
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
David,
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.
and
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/6762046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: 2.16.1
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
-
Le 24/10/2012 17:28, David Kastrup disait :
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net 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
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM, pkx1...@gmail.com 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
___
30 matches
Mail list logo
