Re: spacing/breaking issue [time-sensitive]

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2010-06-01 02:24, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > Graham,
> > > Since none of those are in the tracker as a Critical issue, none
> > > of them are show-stoppers for 2.14.
> >
> > May I say that
> > <http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=884>
> > being labelled as "medium" causes me to wonder about the whole bug prioritizing system. 
> > Is there some logic to what makes something "critical"?
>
> A regression.  If 884 created good output in 2.12, then by all
> means point this out and it'll be re-categorized.

Understood.  Actually, I guess I'm aware of your rating of bug 
priorities, and I appreciate it this handling for the same reason you do.

But I'm sure 884 _is_ a regression, and I'm surprised not to see it 
classified as such.  I attached output from 2.12.3 and 2.13.22 for the 
very snippet in the bug tracker; 2.12.3 renders two pages as expected, 
2.13.22 makes it four.
And certainly the earlier variant is the expected one, so IMHO it should 
not be a documentation issue as mentioned in the bug report:  Even _if_ 
you wanted to specify a certain number of pages between \pageBreaks, you 
often don't want the _same_ number between all manual breaks (which is 
what you can specify now via page-break). Rather, you add \pageBreak at 
"critical" points like the end of a chorus or the beginning of a coda, 
and leave the rest up to Lilypond.  Of course, it'd be nice to have a 
"local" variant of page-count between \pageBreaks, but that's a 
completely different issue.


Cheers,
Alexander

884-2.12.3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

884-2.13.22.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document