[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2 |
Date: |
Thu, 24 May 2012 13:19:29 +0200 |
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
>>> In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
>>> together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
>>> beamed with the others:
>>>
>>> \relative c'' {
>>> \time 3/4
>>> c8 c c c c c
>>> r c c c c c
>>> }
>> It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
>> regression.
>>
>> In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
>> rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
>> preserve the 3-beat character. In:
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>> \time 3/4
>> r4 r8 c c c
>> }
>>
>> the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
>> be avoided.
>>
>> Toine Schreurs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
> reports.
> Don't know if this applies here, but:
> A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has
> _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once
> been fixed to work in that specific way.
> If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression
> but just a newly introduced bug.
> Best
> Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous
version is a regression. People can then either report it as a change, at
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Cheers,
MS
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2, Colin Hall, 2012/05/24