[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Issue 2653 in lilypond: Midi output does not respect tied notes

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Issue 2653 in lilypond: Midi output does not respect tied notes
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:13:22 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:07:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:39:33AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >> cranks out a list of 44 "Invalid" issues.  According to the stated
> >> policy, those should be marked "Verified" eventually.
> >
> > Yes.  Actually, I thought that I was going to stop making any
> > devel releases if there were still "issues to verify" waiting
> > around, but I must admit that I haven't been checking this lately.

huh, I was wrong about this.  Or rather -- at one point in time,
google included invalid issues under "to verify", but that seems
to have been fixed.  Sorry, I should have checked.

> I am by now reasonably sure I remember that this has been discussed at
> some point of time and did not catch my attention.  So I apologize for
> the show of utter surprise I put on here: it is likely that I already
> would have had opportunity to comment at a more imminent time.

To be fair, I don't think it was a formal GOP proposal; rather it
was one of these policies that became established in bits and
pieces (like the current git-cl/patchy/countdown process).  At
some point GOP will get around to formalizing such things.

> It does not appear, however, that at least the current behavior of the
> tracker with regard to searching "Issues to be verified" and the
> description of the "Verified" status make it a good idea to pursue that
> policy.  And I don't see that the policy is reflected in our
> contributors' guide.

Agreed on both points.  Since it was never written down, I'll
withdraw the notion of changing Invalid to Verified.  I think that
will suffice until we have an actual formal GOP proposal for such

- Graham

reply via email to

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