Re: stemlength II

[address@hidden]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> could argue that lengthening a stem to avoid a collision that isn't a
>>>> collision is a bug, but I wouldn't do so without Mike's input.
>>> 
>>> Hm?  A bug with an explanation and a workaround is still a bug as far as
>>> I can see.  Mike's input may be needed in order to decide whether to
> 
>> OK.  http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1613
> 
> I am testing a fix for this; it was an oversight of mine.
> 
> Graham,
> 
> this issue was exposed due to a (seemingly innocuous) one-line change
> by Mike.  Can I ask that you branch off the 2.14 branch so the release
> candidate does not get disturbed by other one-liners with unintended
> effects?  If you don't branch off a stable branch, 2.14 will never get
> finished.

I agree -  I think that if we branch off 2.14 after we fix the three remaining 
critical issues (all of which seem to have been recently introduced) and if 
everyone holds off on pushing new stuff for a bit (my MultiMeasureRest work, 
for example, won't make it into 2.14.0), we can still sit on it for a week or 
two before building it with GUB.  During this incubation phase, we'd only apply 
patches that fix critical or high priority problems.

Cheers,
MS