Re: [SPAM] Re: Serious feedback and improvement headroom

I agree with this freak called Janek ;) Actually I can hear there some reverberation of my own ideas ;) That's great that you want to make Lilypond more user-friendly and make the initial learning curve not that steep, but it the same time don't forget our you Ultimate Goal. That's awesome! :) All

Re: Configuring git-cl

On 15 May 2012 17:06, Graham Percival wrote: > > However, I must admit that I'm not certain how you did this (even > though I read the code!). What should Joseph answer to the git-cl > questions? If you could help him write something for the CG about > this, that would be awesome. I have neit

Re: Configuring git-cl

On 15 May 2012 16:35, Graham Percival wrote: > > IIRC the git-cl on my github account adds a URL which allows us to > search for lilypond patches (which would further reduce the chance > of lost patches). IIRC this happened a few months ago, but I > can't remember how to do the actual searching,

Re: Dictionary for musical terms in Lilypond

On 9 May 2012 10:35, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Łukasz Czerwiński wrote Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:18 PM > > > Thanks all three of you for your immediate reply! :) I didn't know >> about the glossary. One problem with it is that for musical >> terms, except for n

Re: Recap of my meeting w/ Janek

On 4 May 2012 01:08, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On 4 mai 2012, at 00:37, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote: > > On 3 May 2012 13:07, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > >> *2460* is more or less impossible. > > > Why? I don know the details of Lilypond's internals, but a

Re: Strange loop executed only once!

On 3 May 2012 04:18, Keith OHara wrote: > On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:12:33 -0700, Łukasz Czerwiński < > milimet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 April 2012 13:28, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> >> this also looks a little suspect: >>> >>> Rea

Re: Recap of my meeting w/ Janek

On 3 May 2012 13:07, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > *2460* is more or less impossible. Why? I don know the details of Lilypond's internals, but a "white-out" is a rather simple idea, isn't it? Łukasz ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu

Re: Strange loop executed only once!

On 22 April 2012 13:28, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Łukasz Czerwiński > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have spotted a strange loop in lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc (lines > 46-69): > > > > Direction d = UP; > > do > >

Re: Dictionary for musical terms in Lilypond

On 29 April 2012 13:04, Federico Bruni wrote: > Il 29/04/2012 12:55, Łukasz Czerwiński ha scritto: > > Hi, >> >> Recently my Polish speaking friend told me that it's a problem for him >> to look something in Lilypond documentation, because first of all he >&

Dictionary for musical terms in Lilypond

Hi, Recently my Polish speaking friend told me that it's a problem for him to look something in Lilypond documentation, because first of all he must translate the musical term he needs to English, which is quite a hard task, because there are several words that might express the same musical eleme

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

On 26 April 2012 20:41, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote: > > Mike, Graham and David wrote about more or less automatic running of tests > and presenting only the results, possibly on an unused computer. > > I realised that I have a server on Dreamhost that probably could be such a > c

Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

Could you please change the mails' subject? :) I've started a thread: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems for this discussion. Could you move there? Łukasz On 27 April 2012 19:43, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "James" > To: "Phil Holmes" > Cc: ; ; ; < > lily

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

On 28 April 2012 10:30, Graham Percival wrote: > As long as I'm not personally playing nursemaid for people > who don't run the basic tests It seems that the whole talk about running tests is only because of me not running them before uploading my first patches because I didn't know that I shou

Re: LoMuS

On 27 April 2012 08:07, Graham Percival wrote: > > *sigh* > I'll rehash an old email. > > > I know that some of us would like to get paid for lilypond work. > But I'm leery of jumping into this topic for a few reasons: > > 1) lilypond survives because of volunteer work. I think we should > be *e

Re: LoMuS

Musical contest? Great! :) +1 On 27 April 2012 07:29, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > I suggest that *you* are the person receiving the money, acting as a > representative and contact person for this contest. In due course it > is up to you how to distribute the money within the lilypond > developmen

Re: Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

Hello, On 26 April 2012 21:38, James wrote: > No problem, but it doesn't mean that you can just do some code and > throw it up for review without ANY basic testing your side, it should > apply to current tree and it should also pass a basic 'make'. > Yes, before uploading a patch I make sure t

Lilypond patchy and other Lilypond problems

Wooow, a lot of emails were posted in the last 24 hours :) I'll try to comment all your important thoughts, but it's possible that I miss one or two... Anyway: On 26 April 2012 07:28, Graham Percival wrote: > > Some people encourage new contributors. I encourage new > contributors who want to

Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

On 25 April 2012 17:06, David Kastrup wrote: > Łukasz Czerwiński writes: > > > I have never ever get an email from Google Code. I have just checked > > that triple. That's the reason for ignoring your comments. I'm sorry > > that my new patch made you run yo

Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

On 25 April 2012 14:52, David Kastrup wrote: > (...) > To me, that does not look like you particularly value getting a review. > You have not fixed a single thing I pointed out. You have not checked > your submission yourself for the problems. > > I didn't notice that comment. I'm not used yet t

Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

> > I know that this is not a very positive message, but I am trying to save you yet more anguish. The lilypond project currently does > not even function smoothly between senior developers with more > than 100 commits each; there is very little chance for a new > contributor to have a smooth an

Re: Macro for(UP_and_DOWN) and 3 similar. (issue 2491) (issue 6109046)

On 25 April 2012 11:57, wrote: > It would appear that you ignored > > >, >

Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

On 22 April 2012 13:16, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > sorry for the delay; I was on holidays > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Łukasz Czerwiński > wrote: > > Could you please say, if there was a reason for using > > do { > > > > } while(flip(&d)); >

Strange loop executed only once!

Hi, I have spotted a strange loop in lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc (lines 46-69): Direction d = UP; do { . } while (flip (&d) != DOWN); *It will be executed only once - with d set to UP.* To be executed for d = UP and then d = DOWN, it should be: while (flip (&d) != *

Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

Ok, Could we sum up the discussion? As I understand: for (UP_and_DOWN(d)) { } is ok, right? I will wait for two OKs and then make changes and produce and upload a patch. Łukasz ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.

Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

On 15 April 2012 16:49, David Kastrup wrote: > Łukasz Czerwiński writes: > > I'd like to write code, that will make Lilypond better or easier to be > > used > > Not necessarily the same as "the C++ way". > Right :) No iterators needed here :) > >

Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

On 14 April 2012 18:06, David Kastrup wrote: > > Is this supposed to declare d itself or not? Yes, it will declare d as a variable visible only in for loop (I'm using a new way of handling variables declared in for() clause - those variables will no longer be visible outside the for() loop). O

Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)

On 14 April 2012 21:12, wrote: > Splitting the function in two doesn't make it any easier for me to > understand, but I had figured it out before. > > On 2012/03/21 18:56:08, Milimetr88 wrote: > >> What I was taught at the university is to write short >> and simple functions that do only one thin

Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)

On 14 April 2012 16:52, wrote: > Without wanting to rain on your parade: what is all this about? I > actually had been planning to fix this collision stuff: there are > several fundamental shortcomings. The code can't deal sensibly with > different noteheads (harmonics, mixed duration chords wh

Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

On 14 April 2012 16:25, Graham Percival wrote: > > > If you don't know, what I am talking about, take a quick look at: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/diff/1/flower/include/direction.hh(lines > > 75-90). > > tldr summary: we use these for direction loops: > > > for (UP_and_DOWN(d)) >

Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)

On 14 April 2012 16:18, wrote: > > > I have no >> experience with it and instead of learning it now, I would like to >> > answer all > >> comments and correct all glitches, and finally close this patch. >> > > I _really_ suggest that you split the patch into separate patches. Some > of these cha

for_UP_and_DOWN

On 1 April 2012 08:26, Graham Percival wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 06:12:27AM +, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: > > On 2012/04/01 05:00:25, Graham Percival wrote: > > >it would be much nicer if there was a macro for this. > > > > It is better to define macros for just the part inside the for

git-cl could not add label to patch

WARNING: could not change issue labels; please email lilypond-devel with the issue number: 2310 Tracker issue done Some days ago the same error occured. Łukasz ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: Update Rietveld patches

Both done - closing issues on Rietveld and adding 2310 to Rietveld's title. On 3 April 2012 04:00, Colin Campbell wrote: > > Tools which we have written for the purpose are aware of the two > unconnected sources of information about patches and have been modified to > allow you to refer to an ex

Re: benchmarking LilyPond output: would you like some analysis?

On 4 April 2012 15:05, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote: > > On 4 April 2012 13:06, Janek Warchoł wrote: > >> >> How did you like the colorful Credo example posted in the LilyPond >> Report #25 ( >> http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-25&lang=en#the_game

Re: benchmarking LilyPond output: would you like some analysis?

On 4 April 2012 13:06, Janek Warchoł wrote: > > How did you like the colorful Credo example posted in the LilyPond > Report #25 ( > http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-25&lang=en#the_game_of_the_month > )? *The "Credo" file is not colorful. It's just black and white, as usual.* * * Łuk

Re: Update Rietveld patches

Well, I must say that I don't understand what I'm expected to do. Could you please explain me once more and say also what "Apparently replaced by R 5975074, pls add issue nbr to summary" means? Especially "add issue *nbr*to summary". Łukasz On 2 April 2012 03:53, Colin Campbell wrote: > The it

Re: Corrected style of comments (issue 5862052)

Thanku you, Janek and James. Wouldn't it be nicer for git cl to ask for an issue number in case it is unknown? Default value (e.g. 0) could mean a new issue, but the programmer would have an opportunity to type the right issue number. Łukasz On 31 March 2012 22:46, James wrote: > Hello, > > 2

Re: Corrected style of comments (issue 5862052)

On 22 March 2012 15:43, wrote: > Are the changes to .gitignore intentional? > > http://codereview.appspot.com/**5862052/ > Ooops, changes - yes, placing them in the patch - of course no. Łukasz ___ lilypond-deve

Re: vertical spacing - skyline integrals

On 22 March 2012 09:05, Janek Warchoł wrote: > > >> www.anonstorage.net/PStorage/621.skyline-integrals-teeth-marked.pdf I like this one - sounds for me like a good solution :) Łukasz ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://li

Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.

On 16 March 2012 21:45, Janek Warchoł wrote: > > Can you share your thoughts? Lilypond would never be useful for Google products. There is absolutely no point for Google to pay for code that would never be useful for them. Łukasz ___ lilypond-devel m

Re: LilyPond 2.14.2 is in Ubuntu 12.04 software centre

On 6 March 2012 21:36, James wrote: > Francisco, > > On 5 March 2012 23:41, Francisco Vila wrote: > > 2012/3/5 James : > >> Hello, > >> > >> Just in case anyone was interested. Thanks to whoever sorted this out > >> - it used to be 2.11 or even 2.10 not so many months ago. > > > > 330.7 MB to do

Re: Important: GSoC mentors

On 28 February 2012 22:50, Janek Warchoł wrote: > >> Mentors may or may not receive money, but they will surely win Eternal > >> Glory (and maybe a Graham's Kiss, who knows?). Please declare which > >> project(s) you are willing to mentor (remember that not all projects > >> will be launched): >

Re: [frogs] Re: New frog in an empty pond?

Janek, >From my experience of work with you, I think you are a great mentor :D Of course you don't know the whole Lilypond, but it's not so important - in such case you know who you could ask (Graham, Mike etc.). The most important is that thanks to your tips and guidance new contributors would ge

Re: GSoC - continue: answer to Google's question

2012/2/16 Janek Warchoł > What steps will you take to encourage students to interact with your > project's community before, during and after the program? >Before: we assing them a person (not necessarily the mentor) who > will give them "a short tour". we also invite them to reviewing our >

Re: Google Summer of Code - Ideas List, please discuss

The list can be quite long. We don't have to limit it to 2 projects :) Łukasz On 13 February 2012 12:51, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Janek Warchoł > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > SUMMARY: in order to participate in Google Summer of Code ($$$), we > > need an Ideas L

Re: google summer of code

2012/2/10 David Kastrup : >* Don't get me wrong: it is probably quite enough work for getting someone* >* started. I'm just not sure whether it will be easy to sell it off. The* >* largest part of the work would realistically consist in digging oneself* >* into sparsely documented areas, just in

Re: critical issues

Thanks for all answers. On 8 January 2012 23:47, Janek Warchoł wrote: > W dniu 8 stycznia 2012 10:11 użytkownik James napisał: > > Start by looking here: > > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=&sort=priority&colspec=ID&x=type&y=priority&mode=grid&cells=tiles > > Umm, guys,

Re: critical issues

lity. > > If those efforts are not coordinated, there is no end user benefit. > "Coordinated" does NOT mean slavery and being a bored, sad programmer ;) It just means that no one is "a self-appointed janitor", because there is always someone, who keeps an eye on some g

Re: critical issues

On 3 January 2012 21:47, Janek Warchoł wrote: > > > I am a TeX specialist, system programmer, Emacs specialist, the GNU > > maintainer (and a rather pitiful one) for AUCTeX (lytex and itexi > > anybody? preview-latex for Lilypond?) Mmm... Preview for Lilypond? Sounds like a good start for a real