On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:29:46PM +, markpole...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't want to be presumptuous here, but is there any
> chance I can be credited for the original idea? Or is
> that not typically done in the snippets directory?
We don't do this -- at least, we certainly don't have user-v
Hey guys,
I don't want to be presumptuous here, but is there any
chance I can be credited for the original idea? Or is
that not typically done in the snippets directory?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-07/msg00590.html
Figuring that out was a proud moment for me!
Hope yo
On 25/03/12 14:59, philehol...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Reviewers: dak, Graham Percival, Julien Rioux,
>
> Message: Please review
>
> Description: This is effectively a proof-of-concept patch to send
> the output from the above snippet to stderr rather than stdout as
> at present. As ever, it's t
On 2012/03/25 18:36:26, Keith wrote:
LGTM
Just for clarity for patch-tracking, the 'silly' comment refers to the
existing
code, not the change from patch.
On 2012/03/25 14:01:37, dak wrote:
> That's silly.
While the existing code calls format a whole lot, it does not call it
within form
LGTM
Just for clarity for patch-tracking, the 'silly' comment refers to the
existing code, not the change from patch.
On 2012/03/25 14:01:37, dak wrote:
That's silly.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5905052/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-d
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Directs displaying-grob-ancestry.ly to stderr (issue 5905052)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5905052/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/displaying-grob-ancestry.ly
File Documentation/snippets
http://codereview.appspot.com/5905052/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/displaying-grob-ancestry.ly
File Documentation/snippets/displaying-grob-ancestry.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5905052/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/displaying-grob-ancestry.ly#newcode198
Documentation/snippets/displ
Reviewers: dak, Graham Percival, Julien Rioux,
Message:
Please review
Description:
This is effectively a proof-of-concept patch to send the output from the
above snippet to stderr rather than stdout as at present. As ever, it's
to reduce make doc clutter. This patch should apply and work. A r
