Re: Looks for prebroken pieces of dead items in the pure relevant function. (issue 18090043)

2013-10-30 Thread k-ohara5a5a
This looks correct. It includes a pointer to the potential Clef in every single measure in 'pure-relevant-grobs', but the user of that list checks whether the Clef would be visible. The output with annotate-spacing=##t looks correct. The bar numbers are still tentatively placed against the top

Re: Looks for prebroken pieces of dead items in the pure relevant function. (issue 18090043)

2013-10-30 Thread Mike Solomon
On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:32 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: I do not understand the Todo: comment; nothing should have been suicided at this stage. What is the life cycle of a Clef and the copies made for line-breaking possibilities? The original clef is suicided in the

Re: [translations] Re: 2.18 release plans (again).

2013-10-30 Thread James
On 29/10/13 14:14, James wrote: On 29/10/13 09:19, Julien Rioux wrote: On 29/10/2013 4:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Julien Rioux jri...@lyx.org writes: On 27/10/2013 2:09 PM, Janek WarchoĊ‚ wrote: That's good, but the most irritating thing about this patch is not that i have to solve merge

Re: [translations] Re: 2.18 release plans (again).

2013-10-30 Thread David Kastrup
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes: In the CG we have nothing for patch-waiting, but just the others, which leads me on to: Patch-abandoned: the author has not responded to review comments for a few months. Assuming that no one changes a patch-waiting for X weeks, how many would it take -