On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 08:45:24AM +0100, Frédéric Bron wrote:
> > Didn't you already push it? It appeared in my git tree, but maybe
> > I committed it locally but forgot about it?
> >
> > If it's already pushed, you'll need to make a new patch against
> > master; go ahead and push that.
>
> Hi G
> Didn't you already push it? It appeared in my git tree, but maybe
> I committed it locally but forgot about it?
>
> If it's already pushed, you'll need to make a new patch against
> master; go ahead and push that.
Hi Graham, I don't think I have write permissions in the git
repository so if it
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:45:32PM +0100, Frédéric Bron wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay. Is the \bar "|." vital for this issue? If
> > not, policy is to omit it.
>
> Can be removed. Here is the patch without it.
Didn't you already push it? It appeared in my git tree, but maybe
I committed it lo
> Sorry for the delay. Is the \bar "|." vital for this issue? If
> not, policy is to omit it.
Can be removed. Here is the patch without it.
Frédéric
0001-known-issue-in-NR-extra-cautionnary-accidentals-in-a.patch
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:14:33PM +0100, Frédéric Bron wrote:
> >> Could you prepare a patch adding the known behavior and this workaround to
> >> the Known Issues in Displaying pitches in pitches.itely?
>
> Here is a patch for the Notation Reference.
Sorry for the delay. Is the \bar "|." vital
>> Could you prepare a patch adding the known behavior and this workaround to
>> the Known Issues in Displaying pitches in pitches.itely?
Here is a patch for the Notation Reference.
Frédéric
0001-known-issue-in-NR-extra-cautionnary-accidentals-in-a.patch
Description: Binary data
___
> Could you prepare a patch adding the known behavior and this workaround to
> the Known Issues in Displaying pitches in pitches.itely?
OK, I will do that.
Frédéric
---
Frédéric Bron (frederic.b...@m4x.org)
Villa des Quatre Chemins, Centre
Frederic,
Thanks for the info.
On 11/10/09 11:55 AM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>>> BTW, I have found a strange behaviour of "modern" accidentals rule:
>>> LilyPond considers volta alternatives as "previous" measure. Is this
>>> correct? (Note the natural sign at the 2nd and 3rd alternatives, not
>> BTW, I have found a strange behaviour of "modern" accidentals rule:
>> LilyPond considers volta alternatives as "previous" measure. Is this
>> correct? (Note the natural sign at the 2nd and 3rd alternatives, not
>> related to the previous _played_ measure.)
Yes, this is known behaviour. Here is
On 11/9/09 5:58 PM, "Hudson Flávio Meneses Lacerda"
wrote:
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> While this may be syntactically valid LilyPond code, it seems to me to be
>> improper (i.e. to not match the intent of the input construction}.
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for the correction. I have changed my c
10 matches
Mail list logo
