unbeamed 32nd stem is shortened by 0.25 ss to fit beamed stems better.

unbeamed 32nd stem is shortened by 0.25 ss to fit beamed stems better.

as discussed in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-03/msg00091.html

[Janek Warchol, 2011-03-09 20:00:14]

Graham wants us to discuss this, so let's do it :)

I think that this is the only reasonable amount by which we can change 32nd stem
length (4.25 ss instead of 4.5 ss); any remaining inconsistencies in proof-sheet
posted by me (http://www.sendspace.com/file/2mzt4a) should be fixed by tweaking
beams (if they are possible to fix at all). But fixing beams is a whole another
topic, and a huge one. I'm already in the process of gathering examples for
this, but it will take a lot more time.

cheers,
Janek

[Carl, 2011-03-09 20:03:41]

LGTM.

Carl

[Carl, 2011-03-09 20:04:25]

Also, it's a simple enough change that I don't think any discussion is
necessary.  We should go ahead and push it.  It's just a change of a single
constant value.


Carl

[Janek Warchol, 2011-03-09 20:40:04]

New patch handling downstem flag added.

[lemniskata.bernoulliego, 2011-03-13 11:35:59]

What's the status of this?
I don't see any objections, and also i don't see this pushed or being
counted-down.
In fact, i don't see a patch-issue at all.

cheers,
Janek

[Graham Percival, 2011-03-13 14:18:07]

On 3/13/11, Jan Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoulliego@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the status of this?
> I don't see any objections, and also i don't see this pushed or being
> counted-down.
> In fact, i don't see a patch-issue at all.

Sorry, added now:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1558

I'll check the regtests once I'm finished building 2.13.54, then push it.

Cheers,
- Graham

[Graham Percival, 2011-03-13 18:16:28]

On 3/13/11, Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On 3/13/11, Jan Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoulliego@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What's the status of this?
>> I don't see any objections, and also i don't see this pushed or being
>> counted-down.
>> In fact, i don't see a patch-issue at all.
>
> Sorry, added now:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1558

Looks fine; could you send me the final patch for pushing?

Cheers,
- Graham

[lemniskata.bernoulliego, 2011-03-13 18:53:40]

2011/3/13 Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca>:
> On 3/13/11, Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>> On 3/13/11, Jan Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoulliego@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What's the status of this?
>>> I don't see any objections, and also i don't see this pushed or being
>>> counted-down.
>>> In fact, i don't see a patch-issue at all.
>>
>> Sorry, added now:
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1558
>
> Looks fine; could you send me the final patch for pushing?

Here they are.

[Graham Percival, 2011-03-13 19:23:26]

On 3/13/11, Jan Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoulliego@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1558
>>
>> Looks fine; could you send me the final patch for pushing?
>
> Here they are.

Thanks, pushed.

Cheers,
- Graham