RE: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163). (issue4817048)

[James Lowe]

Mike
________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden address@hidden
Sent: 24 July 2011 10:55
To: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; 
address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163).  
(issue4817048)

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:49 AM, address@hidden wrote:

> Make passes and reg tests look pretty good too
>
> See http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=163#c12
>
> for output
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048/

Thanks James!

A lot of the changes are ugly (there are only a couple that are better).  The 
code exists to weed out extreme cases without having an impact upon other 
cases.  Ideally, the current regtests shouldn't change (or the change should be 
so minimal that we have trouble seeing it).  I'll give it another go.

Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
----

No problem, could you (and others if possible) when you put a patch 'back' up - 
remember to set the tracker to patch - new if it needs another set of reg test 
checks? 

I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping up. I realise that a lot of 'fixes' to 
patches that didn't 'quite' pass (depending on your point of view) or patches 
that are just syntax/spacing changes probably don't need another reg test and 
there is no need to change the tracker label.

As I say, I do try to follow all the Rietveld changes, but can miss some or am 
not conversant in the code enough to know if a patch 'change' warrants a new 
reg test or not - in which case I am relying on the 'Patch - new label in the 
tracker. Some devs update the tracker and the reitveld issue but some 
don't/forget etc. in which case I might not do a re-re-review for them.

James