Re: problem with beam collision (was: problem with cross-staff stems,?on lilypond-user)

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/6/12 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:35PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> 2011/6/11 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
>> > Is this problem likely to be unfixed?  Or is there a compelling
>> > reason to override our normal doc policy in this specific case?
>> > I am always happy to grant exceptions if there is a good reason.
>>
>> I'd say that what we have here is an "architecture which may be
>> interpreted as bug".
>> (ofc it will be nice if the architecture was improved, but it isn't
>> necessary buggy)
>
> I don't care whether it's a "bug" or an "architecture".  Is it a
> problem?  yes.  I'm not arguing about that.
>
> Now, should we discuss this problem in the official Notation
> reference?  Well, that depends on whether the problem is likely to
> be fixed in the next year or so.
>
> If Keith, or Mike, or Han-Wen, tells me "yes, we have absolutely
> no plans on changing this bug/architecture/problem/geography in
> the next few months", then our policy states that we should
> discuss this in the Notation reference.  If not, then our policy
> states that we should *not* discuss this in the Notation
> reference.
>
>> At the end of the day, i'd like to have something in the docs that
>> helps avoiding this problem with cross-staff stems and beam collision.
>> We may name it whatever we want.
>
> Then I suggest you add it to LSR, and tag it with "docs".  That's
> much faster and less messy than editing files in git!

Unless you are doing it for the first time, that is :)

Ok, it's not the time to discuss policies. Added as "Cross-staff
chords - beaming problems workarounds"

Janek