Re: Possible regression in 2.13 series? "no viable configuration" warning

[Dmytro O. Redchuk]

On Sun 24 Apr 2011, 18:51 Valentin Villenave wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM, address@hidden
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > That said, the following code still produces the same message:
Hi, Valentin!

Yes, indeed, sorry for so late reply .)

> Greetings everybody, hi Mike,
> 
> Since there's a lot of activity wrt beaming code these days, I'm
> wondering whether the possible regression I mentioned earlier is
> likely to evolve (for better or for worse), and/or if I'd better open
> a tracker page about it. (Or perhaps it could be related to #1613 or
> #1619, for all I know.)
Now there is 1702, "Unaesthetic beam slope", which reflects this situation, I
believe:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1702

I mean that including into your code this \override
  \override StaffGrouper #'staff-staff-spacing #'basic-distance = #10.5
causes message to disappear.

-- 
  Dmytro O. Redchuk
  Bug Squad
                                         "Easy to use" is easy to say.
                                                       --Jeff Garbers