[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue 1608 in lilypond: patch to prevent rests from shifting
From: |
Colin Campbell |
Subject: |
Re: Issue 1608 in lilypond: patch to prevent rests from shifting |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:06:52 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 |
On 11-04-10 09:36 PM, address@hidden wrote:
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: Patch-new
Comment #2 on issue 1608 by percival.music.ca: patch to prevent rests
from shifting
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1608
err, really? I don't see any patch for issue 1604. If this patch is
supposed to fix that issue, could you state that explicitly, and add
the patch-new label to that issue, and the above link?
(no, I haven't read issue 1604 in detail, nor the emails about these
patches, nor the patch itself... but the whole point of the issue
tracker is that we shouldn't need to read stuff in detail to get the
general idea.)
I'm removing the Duplicate label until this has been clarified; I'd
rather have a bit of extra noise rather than lose a patch or bug.
My fault, Graham. I raised issue 1604 last night, and Mike posted a
patch on reitveld in response, this morning. Unusually for Mike, bless
his productive cotton socks, his posting on -devel actually referred to
1604. I hadn't gotten around to adding a note on 1604 to refer to
Mike's reitveld issue. Yes, 1608 is a duplicate.
I see there is a feature request outstanding on the codereview issue
tracker, asking for grouping of issues by project, but that is a halfway
measure for us: our problems come from issues being reported and
discussed on any one, two, or all of three mailing lists, while patches
are discussed, but not trackable on a separate system entirely. This
incident may well serve as the classic example of the problem.
Colin Campbell
--
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who
have too little.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)