[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: spacing/breaking issue [time-sensitive]

From: Alexander Kobel
Subject: Re: spacing/breaking issue [time-sensitive]
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:44:02 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100423 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 2010-06-01 02:24, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Since none of those are in the tracker as a Critical issue, none
of them are show-stoppers for 2.14.

May I say that
being labelled as "medium" causes me to wonder about the whole bug prioritizing system. 
Is there some logic to what makes something "critical"?

A regression.  If 884 created good output in 2.12, then by all
means point this out and it'll be re-categorized.

Understood. Actually, I guess I'm aware of your rating of bug priorities, and I appreciate it this handling for the same reason you do.

But I'm sure 884 _is_ a regression, and I'm surprised not to see it classified as such. I attached output from 2.12.3 and 2.13.22 for the very snippet in the bug tracker; 2.12.3 renders two pages as expected, 2.13.22 makes it four. And certainly the earlier variant is the expected one, so IMHO it should not be a documentation issue as mentioned in the bug report: Even _if_ you wanted to specify a certain number of pages between \pageBreaks, you often don't want the _same_ number between all manual breaks (which is what you can specify now via page-break). Rather, you add \pageBreak at "critical" points like the end of a chorus or the beginning of a coda, and leave the rest up to Lilypond. Of course, it'd be nice to have a "local" variant of page-count between \pageBreaks, but that's a completely different issue.


Attachment: 884-2.12.3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 884-2.13.22.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

reply via email to

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