Re: 2.18 release notes

[James]

On 10/11/13 13:34, David Kastrup wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > David,
> >
> >
> > On 10 November 2013 10:29, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > James <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'll make a patch.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how the process will work (from my own point of view anyway)
> > > > as Patchy only tests against master and we've split of 2.18, so I'll do
> > > the
> > > > make and make check/doc manually if that is OK?
> > > >
> > > > Assuming it is all OK, and goes through the countdown, do I just 'git
> > > push
> > > > HEAD:stable/2.18'?
> > > No, stable/2.18 is my turf.  You just go through the standard process in
> > > relation to master.  If you don't want to actually push to master, you
> > > can send me a git format-patch version against master (or stable/2.18 if
> > > you want to rebase there yourself) and I'll take it from there.
> > >
> > > If that's too complex, just stay relative to master and push to staging.
> > > Once it went through cleanly, I'll cherry-pick from master into
> > > stable/2.18 (fixing the merge conflict) and revert in staging
> > > afterwards.
> > >
> > > 2.18-only changes are a bit of a nuisance to deal with, but fortunately
> > > there are not all that many of them.
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Kastrup
> > Here's the patch. I ran make and make doc against stable/2.18 and had no
> > complaints
> Probably needs some more discussion.  It states
>
>      There is now a new context called @code{NullVoice} which, while not
>      appearing in the printed output, can be used to align lyrics.  It
>      may also be used with the @code{partcombine} function.
>
> And then proceeds to _not_ use it with the \partcombine (backslash!)
> function but instead uses it to align lyrics.  Which is sort of the
> whole point.  It produces alignment timing for an associated lyrics
> voice _instead_ of letting \partcombine do that (\partcombine is not
> really good for that).
>
> So instead of "It may also be used with" this should probably be "This
> can be particularly convenient in parallel with a \partcombine
> construct".  Or something.  Maybe we need an issue after all.
I made an issue after all.

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3655

and uploaded a patch to Rietveld for review

James