lilypond-auto
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3631 in lilypond: 2.17 does a worse job with v


From: lilypond
Subject: Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3631 in lilypond: 2.17 does a worse job with vertical spacing and/or the page layout than 2.16
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:18:09 +0000


Comment #20 on issue 3631 by address@hidden: 2.17 does a worse job with vertical spacing and/or the page layout than 2.16
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3631

One problem I'm having in analyzing the issue is the fact that the music needs to be so long to show the result. Is there an example of similar spacing that can be achieved with just two systems?

Well, my evaluation criterion was the number of output pages. Now in your analysis, you were able to put out measurements that differ. How did you arrive at them? If we can reliably output them, then designing a shorter example should be feasible.

I think it is rather important to get this tackled: if the measurements were provably and consistently _wrong_ before, we should try to adapt the default distances such that the outcome is usually comparable to what we had before. But it looks to me as if the bar numbers at the start of the line should quite rarely figure in the staff-staff distance.

I've seen a number of reports of the "2.16 takes more pages for my scores than 2.12, so I'll rather stick with 2.12" kind on the mailing lists. For some people, this is the most important thing they want from music typesetting: squeeze as much material onto paper as possible with decent readability. We can't support old LilyPond versions indefinitely, and if people stop recompiling their scores with newer and/or even available versions, the whole Free Software idea of providing people with the source to tinker with flies out the window.

So stupid as that may sound: the metric of not taking more space than previously unless there is excellent reason for it is important.

So to get back to the issue: how did you arrive at your numbers? If we know that, we can try to cook up some recipe producing similar numbers but taking less time and effort.


--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings



reply via email to

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