Il 10/03/2013 01:44, Julien Rioux ha scritto:
Yes, CG does lists metapost. But this peckage was not auto-installed
as a dependency from other previous packages.
I agree that this looks like something that the configure script should
have caught. Thanks for reporting it, we should open an
Jean-Charles Malahieude lily...@orange.fr writes:
Le 09/03/2013 18:03, David Kastrup disait :
Jean-Charles Malahieude lily...@orange.fr writes:
Hi David,
What would be more appropriate to have
master-translation-staging ?
Before applying tracker 3229, between 3229 and 3231, or after
Le 10/03/2013 08:00, David Kastrup disait :
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Removed that commit from staging. It should be fixed in the
translation branch.
I mean: it is currently broken in the translation branch and should get
fixed in the translation branch before trying the merge
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Back on board
Hi all,
This is just to let you know I'm finally back home working from my
desktop machine after a long break without access to an Internet
- Original Message -
From: Julien Rioux jri...@lyx.org
To: LilyPond Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: Alternative pixel-based regtest checker
On 01/03/2013 2:15 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
4 files attached. To try this out: create a new
Anders
On 9 March 2013 19:57, Anders Pilegaard arrowy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all.
This is getting a bit long, so here's a brief overview of what's in
this mail:
- I'm proposing a patch ...
Thanks for that.
You'll likely get (more) reviews and comments if you use our normal
process,
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
2.16 is growing old. Now you might go Huh?, but here are salient
points:
a) \override/\revert syntax is increasingly becoming an issue on the
mailing list. There are also related commands that are affected.
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
There's a time of the year for that?
It also means that commits of the this really does nothing, but it
prepares the ground for $xxx, and I don't
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
myself
unpopular.
There's a time of the year for that?
It also means that commits of the this
Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
[...]
So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.
Stabilizing means
I accidentally mucked up some of my GUB set up, so have been essentially
rebuilding from scratch. In doing so, I get this error:
/home/gub/gub/target/darwin-ppc/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-release-unstable/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc:140:
error: initializing argument 2 of
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:54, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
myself
unpopular.
There's a time of the
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
[...]
So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has already been done and cut down on experiments
Am 10.03.2013 20:56, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 10.03.2013 18:32, schrieb David Kastrup:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
[...]
So I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has
m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:54, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On 10 mars 2013, at 18:32, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make
myself
On 10 March 2013 20:56, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I think there have been two issues crystallized out from it.
a) \bar |: and \bar :| are a frequent cause for surprise, and the
return value one gets for dealing with that surprise, a direct way
for specifying the desired look
So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like no new big projects
starting on date X will be part of 2.18 so that developers can plan
out their next few months accordingly.
+1
Werner
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 March 2013 20:56, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I think there have been two issues crystallized out from it.
a) \bar |: and \bar :| are a frequent cause for surprise, and the
return value one gets for dealing with that surprise, a
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like no new big projects
starting on date X will be part of 2.18 so that developers can plan
out their next few months accordingly.
+1
Well,
I just put out the announcement because I feel we should now stop
accumulating stuff that will require half a year to reach a stable
state. We need to focus on dealing with what we have in the queue
right now rather than heaving new things into master that will be
beneficial to end users
On 10 March 2013 22:05, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
(snip)
If a refined interface can defuse these cases as well, it would
certainly seem like a good step to take.
Thank you for this wise message.
Well, the question is always the balance between gain and pain. Where
the pain is not
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
I just put out the announcement because I feel we should now stop
accumulating stuff that will require half a year to reach a stable
state. We need to focus on dealing with what we have in the queue
right now rather than heaving new things into master that
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
unpopular.
I want to see 2.18 soon. That means we need to stabilize work that
has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
So, to resume, I agree that a freeze is important. When the freeze
kicks in, I'd rather that we say something like no new big projects
starting on date X will be part of 2.18 so that developers can plan
out their next few months accordingly.
+1
Hello,
On 10 March 2013 21:58, Anders Pilegaard arrowy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:12 PM, James pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
You'll likely get (more) reviews and comments if you use our normal
process, see:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:22:57PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
/home/gub/gub/target/darwin-ppc/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-release-unstable/lily/unpure-pure-container.cc:140:
error: initializing argument 2 of 'void
scm_set_smob_apply(scm_t_bits, scm_unused_struct* (*)(...),
Hi,
since Mike is very busy i decided to post some of my questions to the list.
I'm working on simplifying self_alignment_interface - i hope to unify
different methods that are used now into one versatile and more
powerful method.
Currently virtually all grobs are aligned relative to their
27 matches
Mail list logo
