[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8)
From: |
Joe Neeman |
Subject: |
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8) |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:53:15 +0200 |
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 20:48 +0200, Joe Neeman wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 01:46 -0400, Marcus Macauley wrote:
> > At least judging from one score I'm working on, 2.9.17 was fine, 2.9.22
> > was way too spread out (vertically and horizontally), and 2.9.23-1 is way
> > too squished together (vertically and horizontally).
> If there aren't any copyright issues, I'd be interested in seeing this
> score.
Just for the record, Marcus sent me a copy of the score privately. I've
isolated at least one issue from it and submitted it as issue #113
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), (continued)
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Joe Neeman, 2006/10/10
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Marcus Macauley, 2006/10/11
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Arvid Grøtting, 2006/10/12
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/12
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Joe Neeman, 2006/10/13
- Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/13
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Marcus Macauley, 2006/10/14
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Joe Neeman, 2006/10/14
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8),
Joe Neeman <=
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Joe Neeman, 2006/10/22
Re: Spacing problems with 2.9.21 (as opposed to 2.8), Marcus Macauley, 2006/10/22