2013/11/10 <address@hidden>: thanks! LGTM. ok, i see the problem. I have just today read some of the discussion about q, but i don't have anything new to propose. So, for me the discussion is closed.
On Nov 10, 2013 5:11 AM, <address@hidden> wrote: On 2013/11/10 11:48:13, janek wrote: Awesome!! could you push it in a branch, so that I could read the commits in sequence? dev/issue3648 On 2013/11/0
could you push it in a branch, so that I could read the commits in sequence? dev/issue3648 The an Good point. However, what about restricting the "pitch inheritance" to the current context, Like q,
And here is a revised version which shortens even more overlong lines. Werner depth = . SUBDIRS = \ python scripts \ flower lily \ mf ly \ tex ps scm \ po make \ elisp vim \ input \ stepmake $(docum
Oops, this was the original file, now comes the new one. Werner depth = . SUBDIRS = \ python scripts \ flower lily \ mf ly \ tex ps scm \ po make \ elisp vim \ input \ stepmake $(documentation-dir)
Folks, I'm quite allergic to overly long lines in any kind of documents. Particularly the various Makefiles have become unreadable IMHO, so I suggest something similar to the attached version of the
I'd do something like git fetch git rebase origin/master origin/dev/staging [Note that you are now outside of any branch] ..test... git push origin HEAD:master git reset --hard master or git rebase o
To whoever is merging lilypond/translation with master: file from VC not distributed: lilypond-2.15.10/Documentation/it/included/generating-output.itexi file from VC not distributed: lilypond-2.15.10
If the release cycle does get shorter (wishful thinking inside ;), I can imagine making do with the current system. Maintaining a "stable-only" LSR does make sense, even if it means commenting out so
Hello Sorry to bang on, but this is a bloody nightmare! If this isn't critical I don't know what is. See attached. I can only describe this as like nailing jelly to a wall. It's wrecked a load of my
Let me see... A 300-Ko patch that affects >100 files? No way. I'm barely able to upload a 15-lines patch... I dislike large commercial companies so much that I've just uploaded my patch on a commerci
In my case, it has been working as intended so far. Which means that I also can't make it work in a sane way. Ok, this particular rant is getting old, but I just could not resist. -- David Kastrup
This is getting bloody annoying. Am I the only one who can't make Rietveld work in a sane way? I prefer the old doc string to the new doc string. Actually, I would prefer it to say "Set note names fo
SH*T. There we go again with that bloody annoying "upload in progress" message. If you can't see some of these files, please use the unified diffs instead (it should work). What Rietveld doesn't ment
But should any discussion of those security flaws and work on patches be made on a private, non-public mailing list? But should any discussion about granting that access be made on a private, non-pub
What can I say? You taught me well, Master :-) Putting "ca." in front of a metronome marking is something I've never done (Jon, I assume you mean "ca." as an abbreviation for "circa"? If you meant "c
Zing! That was a cheap shot. He means "if your audience is so text-hostile that they can't understand \include, then there's no bloody way that they can write scheme code and overrides, so they won't