tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com wrote Saturday, December 25, 2010 9:07
AM
If there are no averse comments over Christmas I'll push this next
week.
Now pushed. Thanks again Keith.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel
LGTM
I like this example of collisions better than the earlier one.
If there are no averse comments over Christmas I'll push this next week.
Thanks Keith.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
OK -- changes posted.
Keith,
The patch wouldn't apply to the previous commit (I think it included
your previous patch) so I applied it to the parent of your previous
commit. Then it applied. Please check to make sure it's what you
wanted.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/
On 12/24/10 9:37 PM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:54:38 -0800, wrote:
>> [...]I would prefer to see the original example retained to show in the
>> starkest
>> fashion how staves should be changed manually, with this one added later
>> to show the possibility of collisions.
>
On 12/24/10 9:37 PM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:54:38 -0800, wrote:
>> [...]I would prefer to see the original example retained to show in the
>> starkest
>> fashion how staves should be changed manually, with this one added later
>> to show the possibility of collisions.
>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:54:38 -0800, wrote:
[...]I would prefer to see the original example retained to show in the starkest
fashion how staves should be changed manually, with this one added later
to show the possibility of collisions.
That's a better way to do it. The attached patch reverts
The content looks fine, but it should be rearranged a little to match
the existing style of the documentation.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely
File Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Do
On 2010/12/23 07:57:58, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Oh I see: it's not a bug, it's a feature :)
There is some of that. I hope the text does not sound dismissive. I was
trying to sound humble: crossing staves is difficult; LilyPond might
need your help.
There are several un-necessary collisions
Just one comment.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely
File Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely#newcode206
Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely:206: a
LGTM. I was a bit shocked when I saw the collisions in the example, but
I think I understand Keith's point.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely
File Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/diff/1/Docum
This has been up for nearly three days now. Any comments?
http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Here's Keith's patch for cross-staff documentation.
LGTM.
Description:
Doc: NR cross-staff
Some collisions are allowed by design,
as controlled by the 'cross-staff' property.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/3782042/
Affected files:
M Documentation/
12 matches
Mail list logo
