On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:55 AM, hanw...@gmail.com wrote:
> LGTM
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
> File lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc#newcode108
> li
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
File lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc#newcode108
lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc:108: skip_me = true;
i'd use
continue
On Apr 6, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> mts...@gmail.com wrote Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:35 PM
>
>
>> I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 hours if possible (which will
>> require 2 LGTMs). This way, << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s c''8 s } >> will
>> be prettier.
>
> Here's
mts...@gmail.com wrote Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:35 PM
I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 hours if possible
(which will
require 2 LGTMs). This way, << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s c''8 s }
>> will
be prettier.
Here's one. LGTM.
It certainly improves the revised regtest, but
I don't
Just kickin' up some dirt, as I haven't heard on this for 4 days.
Now that dynamic beam collision is pushed, I can see this patch going
one of two ways:
I update quote-during.ly to kill beam collision avoidance.
I don't update it (preferred option).
I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 ho
Patch listed.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
What happened to
input/regression/staccato-pos.ly
input/regression/beam-multiple-cross-staff.ly
? it looks like those are currently broken, and this patch fixes it?
Is this just my system acting weird, or did we really miss two broken
regtests earlier?
oh wait, the beam-multiple- regtest has
On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:39 PM, percival.music...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lots of changes to stem lengths, but it compiles and nothing makes me go
> "definitely ick".
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
I'm a fan of most of the changes in the regtests.
I'm amazed you got it to compile, though.
Lots of changes to stem lengths, but it compiles and nothing makes me go
"definitely ick".
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:39 PM, percival.music...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are you able to build a regtest comparison with this patch? I can't,
> but I also haven't been able to identify the problematic file(s) within
> 10 minutes of poking around.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
\relative c'
Are you able to build a regtest comparison with this patch? I can't,
but I also haven't been able to identify the problematic file(s) within
10 minutes of poking around.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-d
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Cheers,
Mike
Description:
Adds stem acknowledgement to beam collision engraver to fix issue 795.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
Affected files:
M lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
Index: lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
diff --git a/lily/bea
12 matches
Mail list logo
