Urs,
On 21 June 2013 09:40, Urs Liska <address@hidden
<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
Am 18.06.2013 21:23, schrieb James:
On 18/06/13 19:47, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 15.06.2013 10:10, schrieb Urs Liska:
Hi,
as discussed here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-06/msg00342.html
The definition of identifier names in
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/file-structure.html
is slightly misleading.
I think applying the attached patch would make it clearer.
Best
Urs
Nobody bothering accepting or at lest commenting a free
patch contribution?
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
What's the google tracker number?
I don't recall testing this patch.
Did it just get thrown onto the list or did they follow the
process for submitting patches?
I don't know if that comment is meant pejorative, but:
This was a bug report with a suggestion for a solution in the form
of an attached patch.
So it presumably matches your description of "just get thrown on
the list".
Urs
It wasn't meant pejoratively at all - I find sarcasm (gentle or
otherwise) really doesn't travel well (across nationalities/cultures -
too much misinterpretation) so I am being straight.
Generally a patch won't get reviewed until it has been tested against
current master, it won't get tested until it has a tracker linking to
a reitveld issue. The testing I do is scripted.
So you can create a tracker manually if you like (and don't want to
use the git-cl tools we provide see;
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers
(reviews)) then add the rietveld link so the scripts can download the
patch to test and then it is in the system (so to speak).