[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.17.16 vs 2.17.17 Page Breaking

From: Keith OHara
Subject: Re: 2.17.16 vs 2.17.17 Page Breaking
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 22:33:24 -0700
User-agent: Opera Mail/12.14 (Win32)

On Wed, 01 May 2013 21:07:52 -0700, Jay Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:

If one of these things puts the page-breaking back to the old way
then something in my change to give space to tempo marks has caused trouble.

(moving to the bug list)
from <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-05/>

Git bisect led to commit b6f94447415dded7c6e146b41b6139fe76cb84c4

I do have a '\tempo 4=108' in the score (for midi purposes), but it is
hidden with
    tempoHideNote = ##t

Thanks.  The change we each pointed to was intended to include tempo marks properly 
in spacing.  I re-test with a few cases, and suspected that my initial space 
allowance for tempo was a bit too high.  I failed to consider a completely hidden 
tempo. <http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3342>

There is a further mystery why, in your example on -uers, all your staff 
extents have a top edge estimated at -3.8 staff spaces; I would have expected 
0.0.  If a lot of people have scores where the estimated-extents are shifted 
down like this, then I cannot give space to tempo marks without rewriting they 
way they are estimated for page-breaking (and changes that deep will wait for 
verison 2.20).

Tell us if you think we should keep the change you bisected to

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]