Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(5078)

Issue 6303095: Documentation of Kievan notation (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 10 months ago by aleksandr.andreev
Modified:
11 years, 10 months ago
CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org
Base URL:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Documentation of Kievan notation Adds a subsection to the Ancient notation section of the Notation reference documenting support of Kievan square notation. Issue 2317.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 17

Patch Set 2 : Updating Kievan documentation #

Total comments: 2

Patch Set 3 : Removing 'fragment' from ancient.itely #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+19 lines, -19 lines) Patch
M Documentation/notation/ancient.itely View 1 2 19 chunks +19 lines, -19 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 13
aleksandr.andreev
Please review.
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-18 01:46:47 UTC) #1
janek
LGTM, minor style issues. http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/music-glossary.tely File Documentation/music-glossary.tely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/music-glossary.tely#newcode4539 Documentation/music-glossary.tely:4539: jurisdictions of Orthodoxy and Byzantine-rite ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-18 07:41:54 UTC) #2
Trevor Daniels
This will be an excellent addition to the NR. We don't enforce house style quite ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-18 08:06:15 UTC) #3
aleksandr.andreev
Updated patch based on comments by Janek and Trevor. http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/music-glossary.tely File Documentation/music-glossary.tely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/music-glossary.tely#newcode4539 Documentation/music-glossary.tely:4539: ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-19 00:07:13 UTC) #4
janek
LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely File Documentation/notation/ancient.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/1/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely#newcode2566 Documentation/notation/ancient.itely:2566: @end lilypond On 2012/06/19 00:07:13, aleksandr.andreev wrote: > ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-19 05:13:49 UTC) #5
Trevor Daniels
LGTM I'm happy with the last two examples separated, as you have them. Thanks! Trevor
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-19 08:42:52 UTC) #6
Graham Percival
LGTM given that it's in NR 2, in particular Ancient, since as Trevor noted we ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-20 02:35:22 UTC) #7
aleksandr.andreev
http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/4/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely File Documentation/notation/ancient.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6303095/diff/4/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely#newcode2530 Documentation/notation/ancient.itely:2530: @lilypond[quote,fragment,relative=1,notime,verbatim] On 2012/06/20 02:35:23, Graham Percival wrote: > IIRC ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-20 03:04:21 UTC) #8
Trevor Daniels
On 2012/06/20 03:04:21, aleksandr.andreev wrote: > It seems to be used that way throughout the ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-20 22:31:53 UTC) #9
aleksandr.andreev
Per comments by Graham and Trevor, I have removed 'fragment' throughout ancient.itely where 'relative' is ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-22 22:33:45 UTC) #10
janek
pushed as a10311ff02578de9f979dc6ad83ba9535f8e4e4c. Aleksandr, please close this Rietveld issue. thanks!
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-23 05:37:05 UTC) #11
aleksandr.andreev
On 2012/06/23 05:37:05, janek wrote: > pushed as a10311ff02578de9f979dc6ad83ba9535f8e4e4c. > > Aleksandr, please close this ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-23 13:19:33 UTC) #12
janek
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-23 13:54:44 UTC) #13
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM,  <aleksandr.andreev@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was going to have the removal of 'fragment' reviewed in this issue,
> per Trevor's recommendation. Or shall I open a separate issue for that?

It would make sense to use the same Rietveld issue for reviewing that
if both changes were pushed at the same time.  But as the
documentation change was pushed already, i suggest to create another
issue for greater clarity.

cheers,
Janek
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b