Hello,
Patchy cannot merge current staging because of make doc errors.
Fails here:
--snip--
%
% ly snippet:
%
\sourcefileline 77
#(use-modules (scm accreg))
\new
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
Patchy cannot merge current staging because of make doc errors.
Fails here:
--snip--
%
% ly snippet:
%
\sourcefileline 77
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
Patchy cannot merge current staging because of make doc errors.
Hi Keith, I'll clean up staging, likely _including_ the first convert-ly
rule. That gives you a chance to do a git-rebase -i in order not to
commit with
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
Seems I am back on-line. Thanks for filling in David et al.
*Countdown -- September 21st -- 06:00 GMT* *
**
**
**
*
Oops. I had the countdown run to Sept 20 and finished it as scheduled,
so
Hello
*Countdown – September 24th – 06:00 GMT* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
3507http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3507q=label%3APatch-pushsort=patchcolspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Summary%20Modified
Ugly
Phil Holmes push Harmonic notes should
Hello,
On 21/09/13 09:02, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
Seems I am back on-line. Thanks for filling in David et al.
*Countdown -- September 21st -- 06:00 GMT* *
* *
* *
* *
*
Oops. I had the
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
I've all but finished the new lilydev (which is using Ubuntu base
13.04 instead of 10.04) and will proceed to give it a bit of a soak
test (running all the usual stuff I do) for a few days next week to
make sure it is 'presentable' to the masses. So will see if
David made the comment that we'd no information on the performance of the
latest development release on large project, so I thought I'd do a little
benchmarking. This has been done on windows vista 64 bit.
I've used 4 benchmarking tests: a) \repeat unfold xx c''4; b) \repeat unfold
500 { c''4
Hello,
i wondered why patchy bothers to run its merge script when staging and
master are already in sync?
In this case there was simply an update from release/unstable -
origin/release/unstable.
See log:
--snip--
(UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
David made the comment that we'd no information on the performance of
the latest development release on large project, so I thought I'd do a
little benchmarking. This has been done on windows vista 64 bit.
I've used 4 benchmarking tests: a) \repeat
On 21/09/13 13:31, Phil Holmes wrote:
David made the comment that we'd no information on the performance of
the latest development release on large project, so I thought I'd do a
little benchmarking. This has been done on windows vista 64 bit.
I've used 4 benchmarking tests: a) \repeat unfold
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
David made the comment that we'd no information on the performance of
the latest
2.12 - 162 pages; 2.14 - 147; 2.16 - 142; 2.17.26 - 158pp. 2.17 is noticeably
looser, but I concluded I'd adjust some of the spacing controls to fit more to
a page.
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: James
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21,
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
David made the comment that we'd no
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
2.12 - 162 pages; 2.14 - 147; 2.16 - 142; 2.17.26 - 158pp. 2.17 is
noticeably looser, but I concluded I'd adjust some of the spacing
controls to fit more to a page.
That's actually a real problem. Now 2.17.27 will have some padding
significantly
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Heikki Tauriainen g034737 at welho.com writes:
In short, these patches will add the following three context properties
for controlling additional MIDI parameters:
Staff.midiPanPosition [an integer from 0 to 127]
Pan position (0 =
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: James pkx1...@gmail.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
2.12 - 162 pages; 2.14
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
To: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Phil Holmes
2013/9/20 Heikki Tauriainen g034...@welho.com:
Hi,
[...] I have a series of patches to add functionality to control
additional MIDI parameters (besides the MIDI instrument) directly from
within the LilyPond source (namely, pan position, and reverb and chorus
effect levels). I post and
I've built a new release of Lilypond (a day earlier than normal owing to
concerts tomorrow) but at present I can't log in to lilypond.org to do the
upload - there's a permissions problem. I've asked Graham whether he can
help and am awaiting his response. If it's not fixed today I'll rebuild
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
I've done quite a bit of work trying to see what's going on and have
discovered that something introduced between (I think) 2.17.18 and
2.17.19
has affected how lily determines whether it can fit another system in.
With ragged-bottom set and
Phil Holmes email at philholmes.net writes:
Summary: 2.12 was very slow and unreliable on large scores. 2.14, 2.16 and
2.17.26 are similar: it look like current devel is slower where there's a
lot of interleaving of notes and dynamics to be done, which is probably to
be expected with the
Janek Warchoł janek.lilypond at gmail.com writes:
As for the patches themselves, are you using Git? It would be
slightly more convenient for us if you sent us Git-formatted patches
(i.e. patches representing complete git commits), or uploaded them for
review as described here
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
Phil Holmes email at philholmes.net writes:
Summary: 2.12 was very slow and unreliable on large scores. 2.14, 2.16
and
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
Phil Holmes mail at philholmes.net writes:
I've done quite a bit of work trying to see what's going on and have
2013/9/21 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net:
FWIW, I find my build machine on Ubuntu is much faster.
I've noticed that compiling LilyPond scores is 2-3 times faster on my
Ubuntu 12.04 than on Windows 7. Interesting.
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing
Quoting Janek Warcho? janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
As for the patches themselves, are you using Git? It would be
slightly more convenient for us if you sent us Git-formatted patches
(i.e. patches representing complete git commits), [...]
Here are the Git-formatted patches.
--
Heikki Tauriainen
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:14:24 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
Is it possible to minimize an example, so we see if the old behavior
is something we want? (as opposed to something that did what you
wanted but for mysterious reasons.)
I can
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:14:24 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
Is it possible to minimize an example, so we see if the old behavior
is something we want? (as opposed to something that did what you
29 matches
Mail list logo
