Thread: Re: [oll-user] Git workflow (Page 2)
Resources for LilyPond and LaTeX users writing (about) music
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
u-li-1973
From: Joshua N. <jos...@gm...> - 2014-01-12 02:29:13
|
How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have no idea what to do... IC, Josh On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...> wrote: > Am Samstag, den 11.01.2014, 10:09 -0700 schrieb Marc Sabatella: > > On 1/10/2014 5:56 PM, Urs Liska wrote: > > > before you should do: > > > > > > Git checkout 2-schumann-challenge > > > Git fetch upstream > > > Git rebase upstream/master > > > Git checkout musescore > > > Git rebase 2-schumann > > > > > > (Everything with lowercase at the beginning) > > > > > > Then make sure to open the request against > openlilylib/2-schumann-challenge. > > > > This is *almost* but not quite what I figured out on my own. In the > > third step above, I did the rebase against upstream/2-schumann-challenge > > instead of upstream/master - basically, I did a global replace of > > everywhere I normally would have used "master", changing it to > > 2-schumann-challenge. And I assume your fifth step above is a typo and > > should have been a 2-schumann-challenge. > > > > I'm still green enough with Git to not be able to figure out for myself > > what the difference between "git rebase upstream/master" and "git rebase > > upstream/2-schumann-challenge" is in this context. Did I screw things > > up badly enough that I need to redo all this, or if the pull request > > usable as is? > > > > Anyhow, this whole series of step - including instructions on how to > > open a PR against a branch (since it seems to default to master) should > > probably go in the workflow document. > > > > Marc > > > > I will look into this in detail later tonight. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > openlilylib-user mailing list > ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-12 02:37:13
|
Joshua Nichols <jos...@gm...> schrieb: >How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have no >idea what to do... Assuming you are in your repo file, do git checkout master %just to be sure % add/edit file(s) git add FILE git commit % this fires an editor for the commit message git push %uploads all necessary commits HTH Urs > >IC, > >Josh > > >On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...> wrote: > >> Am Samstag, den 11.01.2014, 10:09 -0700 schrieb Marc Sabatella: >> > On 1/10/2014 5:56 PM, Urs Liska wrote: >> > > before you should do: >> > > >> > > Git checkout 2-schumann-challenge >> > > Git fetch upstream >> > > Git rebase upstream/master >> > > Git checkout musescore >> > > Git rebase 2-schumann >> > > >> > > (Everything with lowercase at the beginning) >> > > >> > > Then make sure to open the request against >> openlilylib/2-schumann-challenge. >> > >> > This is *almost* but not quite what I figured out on my own. In >the >> > third step above, I did the rebase against >upstream/2-schumann-challenge >> > instead of upstream/master - basically, I did a global replace of >> > everywhere I normally would have used "master", changing it to >> > 2-schumann-challenge. And I assume your fifth step above is a typo >and >> > should have been a 2-schumann-challenge. >> > >> > I'm still green enough with Git to not be able to figure out for >myself >> > what the difference between "git rebase upstream/master" and "git >rebase >> > upstream/2-schumann-challenge" is in this context. Did I screw >things >> > up badly enough that I need to redo all this, or if the pull >request >> > usable as is? >> > >> > Anyhow, this whole series of step - including instructions on how >to >> > open a PR against a branch (since it seems to default to master) >should >> > probably go in the workflow document. >> > >> > Marc >> > >> >> I will look into this in detail later tonight. >> >> >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> >> >http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> openlilylib-user mailing list >> ope...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user >> -- Urs Liska openlilylib.org |
From: Joshua N. <jos...@gm...> - 2014-01-12 02:51:37
|
I tried adding files, but I got these messages in both times I tried: fatal: pathspec '*E:/EngravingChallenge/SchuV1.musx' did not match any files or fatal: 'E:/EngravingChallenge/SchuV1.pdf' is outside repository help? IC, Josh On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...> wrote: > > > Joshua Nichols <jos...@gm...> schrieb: > >How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have no > >idea what to do... > > Assuming you are in your repo file, do > > git checkout master > %just to be sure > > % add/edit file(s) > git add FILE > git commit > % this fires an editor for the commit message > git push > %uploads all necessary commits > > HTH > Urs > > > > > >IC, > > > >Josh > > > > > >On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...> wrote: > > > >> Am Samstag, den 11.01.2014, 10:09 -0700 schrieb Marc Sabatella: > >> > On 1/10/2014 5:56 PM, Urs Liska wrote: > >> > > before you should do: > >> > > > >> > > Git checkout 2-schumann-challenge > >> > > Git fetch upstream > >> > > Git rebase upstream/master > >> > > Git checkout musescore > >> > > Git rebase 2-schumann > >> > > > >> > > (Everything with lowercase at the beginning) > >> > > > >> > > Then make sure to open the request against > >> openlilylib/2-schumann-challenge. > >> > > >> > This is *almost* but not quite what I figured out on my own. In > >the > >> > third step above, I did the rebase against > >upstream/2-schumann-challenge > >> > instead of upstream/master - basically, I did a global replace of > >> > everywhere I normally would have used "master", changing it to > >> > 2-schumann-challenge. And I assume your fifth step above is a typo > >and > >> > should have been a 2-schumann-challenge. > >> > > >> > I'm still green enough with Git to not be able to figure out for > >myself > >> > what the difference between "git rebase upstream/master" and "git > >rebase > >> > upstream/2-schumann-challenge" is in this context. Did I screw > >things > >> > up badly enough that I need to redo all this, or if the pull > >request > >> > usable as is? > >> > > >> > Anyhow, this whole series of step - including instructions on how > >to > >> > open a PR against a branch (since it seems to default to master) > >should > >> > probably go in the workflow document. > >> > > >> > Marc > >> > > >> > >> I will look into this in detail later tonight. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > >> > >> > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > >> _______________________________________________ > >> openlilylib-user mailing list > >> ope...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > >> > > > -- > Urs Liska > openlilylib.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Marc S. <ma...@ou...> - 2014-01-12 03:30:59
|
On 1/11/2014 7:28 PM, Joshua Nichols wrote: > How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have > no idea what to do... Did you read my "big picture" summary? Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to your fork. Marc |
From: Joshua N. <jos...@gm...> - 2014-01-12 06:00:21
|
> > Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed > make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you > changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to > your fork. Please forgive me for being asinine about all of this, but I'm still WAY behind. I tried many of the commands inside Git, and I'm not even sure why it isn't working. Unfortunately, I don't even know how to add a new file to the fork I have.... I feel so cumbersome! Your help is greatly appreciated, even if I keep replying with utter ignorance. IC, Josh On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...>wrote: > On 1/11/2014 7:28 PM, Joshua Nichols wrote: > >> How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have no >> idea what to do... >> > > Did you read my "big picture" summary? > > Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed > make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you > changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to > your fork. > > Marc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Marc S. <ma...@ou...> - 2014-01-12 07:25:13
|
Again, did you read my previous message where I laid out the basics? It kind of sounds to me like you never actually cloned you repo to your computer, so now you're just trying to push random files from any old folder to your fork. It doesn't work that way. You have to clone your fork to your local computer. That local repo on your computer is where you do all your work. You have to be in your local cloned repo when you do anything at all.— Marc Sabatella On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Joshua Nichols <jos...@gm...> wrote: >> >> Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed >> make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you >> changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to >> your fork. > Please forgive me for being asinine about all of this, but I'm still WAY > behind. I tried many of the commands inside Git, and I'm not even sure why > it isn't working. > Unfortunately, I don't even know how to add a new file to the fork I > have.... > I feel so cumbersome! Your help is greatly appreciated, even if I keep > replying with utter ignorance. > IC, > Josh > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...>wrote: >> On 1/11/2014 7:28 PM, Joshua Nichols wrote: >> >>> How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have no >>> idea what to do... >>> >> >> Did you read my "big picture" summary? >> >> Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed >> make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you >> changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to >> your fork. >> >> Marc >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Phil H. <ma...@ph...> - 2014-01-12 10:35:12
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@ou...> To: "Joshua Nichols" <jos...@gm...> Cc: "oll-user" <ope...@li...> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [oll-user] Git workflow > Again, did you read my previous message where I laid out the basics? It > kind of sounds to me like you never actually cloned you repo to your > computer, so now you're just trying to push random files from any old > folder to your fork. It doesn't work that way. You have to clone your fork > to your local computer. That local repo on your computer is where you do > all your work. You have to be in your local cloned repo when you do > anything at all.— > Marc Sabatella Alternatively, there is a long thread between David Webber and myself: in this I talk him through using git, from not having it installed to successfully updating github. If you follow those steps, you should be OK. -- Phil Holmes |
From: Shane B. <sh...@gr...> - 2014-01-12 04:26:03
|
Well that can be a trouble too. Since it is possible to add files directly with the browser interface and delete them too. Which means if you have not done the same with your personal files living remotely on your machine or where ever you keep them then it won't match things and the whole ability to push goes poof. So that being said the trouble is trying to find out why Josh is having trouble. It seems to me that he needs to try this maybe: git add SchuV1.musx git commit -am 'Commit message' git push github That was a stumble for me also the fact you have to tell the git you have added a file that you want to commit and then push into the git. Shane On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...> wrote: > On 1/11/2014 7:28 PM, Joshua Nichols wrote: >> How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have >> no idea what to do... > > Did you read my "big picture" summary? > > Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed > make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you > changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to > your fork. > > Marc > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > openlilylib-user mailing list > ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user |
From: Joshua N. <jos...@gm...> - 2014-01-12 05:48:46
|
fatal: 'E:\EngravingChallenge\SchuV1.musx' is outside repository I cannot "git add SchuV1.musx" at all. I get the above error message. I am at a loss. IC, Josh On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Shane Brandes <sh...@gr...> wrote: > Well that can be a trouble too. Since it is possible to add files > directly with the browser interface and delete them too. Which means > if you have not done the same with your personal files living remotely > on your machine or where ever you keep them then it won't match things > and the whole ability to push goes poof. > So that being said the trouble is trying to find out why Josh is having > trouble. > It seems to me that he needs to try this maybe: > git add SchuV1.musx > git commit -am 'Commit message' > git push github > > That was a stumble for me also the fact you have to tell the git you > have added a file that you want to commit and then push into the git. > > > Shane > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...> > wrote: > > On 1/11/2014 7:28 PM, Joshua Nichols wrote: > >> How in the WORLD do I create folders and add files to GitHub? I have > >> no idea what to do... > > > > Did you read my "big picture" summary? > > > > Basically, you don't add files or folders to GitHub directly, or indeed > > make any changes whatsoever directly on GitHub. Instead, you make you > > changes - including adding files - to your local repo, then push them to > > your fork. > > > > Marc > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > _______________________________________________ > > openlilylib-user mailing list > > ope...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 11:24:40
|
Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: > I've started to look at the engraving challenge, and one thing that I think > makes this not the best challenge: it looks like it's just a page from a > piece, rather than the piece itself. As a result, there's no title > information, etc., and not even a time signature. I presume it's 4/4 and > will use this, but without messing around that will put one extraneous > element on the output from Sibelius: i.e. a time signature. You're right, it's only one page, because a whole piece would definitely be too much. With regards to the titles I could simply add the titling from the first page and include that in the assignment. (Yes, I think the handling of titles etc. is also an interesting part). > > The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the beaming > patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with require > substantial hacking to set this. This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs with extreme tasks. But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. > Some of the crossing notes are not really > all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some more. > And I > assume there's lots of unmarked triplets all over the place? Yes, but that's pretty standard in this kind of music IMO. > Would it not > be better to start with a piece that follows the recommendations of the > typesetting manuals? As said, I'd like to have more opinions. But in any case this is only an issue for the strange beaming, everything else seems appropriate for the task in my eyes. Urs PS: Please prefix messages with [Challenges] > > -- > Phil Holmes > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > openlilylib-user mailing list > ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org |
From: David W. <da...@mu...> - 2014-01-10 15:12:39
|
From: Urs Liska > did you deliberately reply to me privately? No :-) [Normally the Reply-all button on my Windows Live mail, replies to lists like this, but for this one it seems to go to the individual. But this is the first source forge list I've tried.] >... > That's a valid position. >... > I think the judgements are highly subjective, and as said in several places we're not going to nominate a winner. In a case like yours you will get the most out of it yourself when making the experience, comparing it to the reports of others and see what inspiration you'll get from this for further development of your software.< Thanks. I'm feeling encouraged. Having looked more closely, I am now convinced that this piece has been engraved by a complete fruitcake :-) :-) Beat 2 of bar 3, when I worked it out, has two C's at the same pitch beamed from treble to bass staff, (the one Phil remarked on), in order to make it as hard to read as possible. (OK I'm no pianist, and us sax players don't have to worry about that, but I'm sure this is not 'normal'.) Still, I can do that! :-) Dave David Webber Mozart Music Software http://www.mozart.co.uk/ |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 15:22:13
|
Am 10.01.2014 16:04, schrieb David Webber: > From: Urs Liska > >> did you deliberately reply to me privately? > > No :-) [Normally the Reply-all button on my Windows Live mail, replies to > lists like this, but for this one it seems to go to the individual. But > this is the first source forge list I've tried.] > >> ... >> That's a valid position. >> ... >> I think the judgements are highly subjective, and as said in several > places we're not going to nominate a winner. > In a case like yours you will get the most out of it yourself when > making the experience, comparing it to the reports of others and see > what inspiration you'll get from this for further development of your > software.< > > Thanks. I'm feeling encouraged. > > Having looked more closely, I am now convinced that this piece has been > engraved by a complete fruitcake :-) :-) Beat 2 of bar 3, when I worked > it out, has two C's at the same pitch beamed from treble to bass staff, (the > one Phil remarked on), in order to make it as hard to read as possible. (OK > I'm no pianist, and us sax players don't have to worry about that, but I'm > sure this is not 'normal'.) I can assure you this _is_ 'normal' for this kind of piano music (apart from the fact that the music is somewhat beyound 'normal' music ;-), and it's surely not on the engraver's behalf but that of the composer. The only reasonable alternative (sometimes used by Liszt) would be to put the melody on its own staff. Urs > Still, I can do that! :-) > > Dave > > David Webber > Mozart Music Software > http://www.mozart.co.uk/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > openlilylib-user mailing list > ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > |
From: Phil H. <ma...@ph...> - 2014-01-10 12:34:17
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: >> >> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the >> beaming >> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with >> require >> substantial hacking to set this. > > This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs with > extreme tasks. > But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. > I'd like to hear more opinions on this. OK. >> Some of the crossing notes are not really >> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. > > I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some more. On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. -- Phil Holmes |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 12:39:36
|
Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> > To: <ope...@li...> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM > Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > > >> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>> >>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the >>> beaming >>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with >>> require >>> substantial hacking to set this. >> >> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs with >> extreme tasks. >> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. >> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. > > OK. > >>> Some of the crossing notes are not really >>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. >> >> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some more. > > On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses > to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the > LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef. But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. It's not easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that context. And it's not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the corresponding points in the next bar where the melody is in triplets. Best Urs > > -- > Phil Holmes -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org |
From: Phil H. <ma...@ph...> - 2014-01-10 13:02:43
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> To: "Phil Holmes" <ma...@ph...>; <ope...@li...> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> >> To: <ope...@li...> >> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM >> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge >> >> >>> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>>> >>>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the >>>> beaming >>>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with >>>> require >>>> substantial hacking to set this. >>> >>> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs with >>> extreme tasks. >>> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. >>> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. >> >> OK. >> >>>> Some of the crossing notes are not really >>>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. >>> >>> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some >>> more. >> >> On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses >> to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the >> LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. > > the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef. > But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. It's not > easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that context. And it's > not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the corresponding > points in the next bar where the melody is in triplets. It's objectionable because the stem goes clean through the beam (without being even visible in the beam). It would be clearer and better looking to leave it in the treble stave. FWIW, also check out the first 4 notes in the LH in bar 3. No stems in the beams. -- Phil Holmes |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 13:10:04
|
Am 10.01.2014 14:02, schrieb Phil Holmes: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> > To: "Phil Holmes" <ma...@ph...>; > <ope...@li...> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:36 PM > Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > > >> Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> >>> To: <ope...@li...> >>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM >>> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge >>> >>> >>>> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>>>> >>>>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the >>>>> beaming >>>>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with >>>>> require >>>>> substantial hacking to set this. >>>> >>>> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs >>>> with >>>> extreme tasks. >>>> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. >>>> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. >>> >>> OK. >>> >>>>> Some of the crossing notes are not really >>>>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. >>>> >>>> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some >>>> more. >>> >>> On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses >>> to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the >>> LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. >> >> the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef. >> But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. It's not >> easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that context. And >> it's not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the >> corresponding points in the next bar where the melody is in triplets. > > It's objectionable because the stem goes clean through the beam (without > being even visible in the beam). It would be clearer and better looking > to leave it in the treble stave. > OK, I see now what you mean. Two aspects: a) It _has_ to be in the lower stave because it's to be played with the left hand. b) Looking thorugh the score it seems the engraver treated this aspect inconsistently, sometimes there are stems between the beams, sometimes not. I think this is a case that can be neglected. The intention is *not* to replicate the original as closely as possible, but to engrave the music as good as possible. Urs > FWIW, also check out the first 4 notes in the LH in bar 3. No stems in > the beams. > > -- > Phil Holmes -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org |
From: Marc S. <mar...@gm...> - 2014-01-10 15:17:07
|
Accidentally replied privately (are we religiously oppsed to having the list set reply-to?)— Marc Sabatella ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Marc Sabatella" <mar...@gm...> Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge To: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> > Regarding the title, etc - since this is just one page of a multipage score, I think the most natural way to handle this is to create a multipage score, put nothing of interest on the first page (one empty measure, perhaps), and then just submit page two. > However, I too question whether this except makes sense as an initial challenge. It seems desgiend to answer the question, "how well do various programs do at representing notation that almost no one will ever need to create". I can see eventually wanting to answer that question. But isn't the far more interesting question, how well do they do at the common stuff? I think we should establish that first using a more conventional score. Using something simpler would also give us an opportunity to work the kinks out of the process itself. > — > Marc Sabatella > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...> wrote: >> Am 10.01.2014 14:02, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> >>> To: "Phil Holmes" <ma...@ph...>; >>> <ope...@li...> >>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:36 PM >>> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge >>> >>> >>>> Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> >>>>> To: <ope...@li...> >>>>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the >>>>>>> beaming >>>>>>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with >>>>>>> require >>>>>>> substantial hacking to set this. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs >>>>>> with >>>>>> extreme tasks. >>>>>> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge. >>>>>> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. >>>>> >>>>> OK. >>>>> >>>>>>> Some of the crossing notes are not really >>>>>>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some >>>>>> more. >>>>> >>>>> On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses >>>>> to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the >>>>> LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. >>>> >>>> the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef. >>>> But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. It's not >>>> easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that context. And >>>> it's not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the >>>> corresponding points in the next bar where the melody is in triplets. >>> >>> It's objectionable because the stem goes clean through the beam (without >>> being even visible in the beam). It would be clearer and better looking >>> to leave it in the treble stave. >>> >> OK, I see now what you mean. >> Two aspects: >> a) >> It _has_ to be in the lower stave because it's to be played with the >> left hand. >> b) >> Looking thorugh the score it seems the engraver treated this aspect >> inconsistently, sometimes there are stems between the beams, sometimes not. >> I think this is a case that can be neglected. The intention is *not* to >> replicate the original as closely as possible, but to engrave the music >> as good as possible. >> Urs >>> FWIW, also check out the first 4 notes in the LH in bar 3. No stems in >>> the beams. >>> >>> -- >>> Phil Holmes >> -- >> Urs Liska >> www.openlilylib.org >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> openlilylib-user mailing list >> ope...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 15:34:55
|
Am 10.01.2014 16:12, schrieb Marc Sabatella: > Regarding the title, etc - since this is just one page of a multipage > score, I think the most natural way to handle this is to create a > multipage score, put nothing of interest on the first page (one empty > measure, perhaps), and then just submit page two. That sounds a good idea. > > However, I too question whether this except makes sense as an initial > challenge. By now I'm nearly talked into postponing it and considering something else ... > It seems desgiend to answer the question, "how well do > various programs do at representing notation that almost no one will > ever need to create". Maybe I'm biased because we just published nearly 100 pages of music that was very often that complex. And I have recorded around eight hours of comparable music over recent years, so it seemed rather natural... > I can see eventually wanting to answer that > question. But isn't the far more interesting question, how well do they > do at the common stuff? I think we should establish that first using a > more conventional score. Sounds acceptable. > Using something simpler would also give us an > opportunity to work the kinks out of the process itself. This is a really good point. So I think we postpone (but not junk it, existing work is still valid) the chopin-godowsky example. I still would like to keep it (less) complex piano music. What about the introduction of Chopin's f minor ballad op. 52 (m.1-7) http://imslp.org/images/7/79/TN-FChopin_Ballade_No.4%2C_Op.52_BH1.jpg ? Or is this still too complex? Urs > — > Marc Sabatella > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Urs Liska <ul...@op... > <mailto:ul...@op...>> wrote: > > Am 10.01.2014 14:02, schrieb Phil Holmes: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> > > To: "Phil Holmes" <ma...@ph...>; > > <ope...@li...> > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > > > > > >> Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" > <ul...@op...> > >>> To: <ope...@li...> > >>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > >>> > >>> > >>>> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes: > >>>>> > >>>>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music > - the > >>>>> beaming > >>>>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program > with > >>>>> require > >>>>> substantial hacking to set this. > >>>> > >>>> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program > performs > >>>> with > >>>> extreme tasks. > >>>> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first > challenge. > >>>> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>>> Some of the crossing notes are not really > >>>>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example. > >>>> > >>>> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down > some > >>>> more. > >>> > >>> On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave > crosses > >>> to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the > beam for the > >>> LH. I'm not convinced it's easy to read that. > >> > >> the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef. > >> But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. > It's not > >> easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that > context. And > >> it's not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the > >> corresponding points in the next bar where the melody is in > triplets. > > > > It's objectionable because the stem goes clean through the beam > (without > > being even visible in the beam). It would be clearer and better > looking > > to leave it in the treble stave. > > > > OK, I see now what you mean. > Two aspects: > a) > It _has_ to be in the lower stave because it's to be played with the > left hand. > > b) > Looking thorugh the score it seems the engraver treated this aspect > inconsistently, sometimes there are stems between the beams, > sometimes not. > I think this is a case that can be neglected. The intention is *not* to > replicate the original as closely as possible, but to engrave the music > as good as possible. > > Urs > > FWIW, also check out the first 4 notes in the LH in bar 3. No > stems in > > the beams. > > > > -- > > Phil Holmes > > > -- > Urs Liska > www.openlilylib.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > _______________________________________________ > openlilylib-user mailing list > ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user > > |
From: Phil H. <ma...@ph...> - 2014-01-10 15:37:48
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> To: "oll-user" <ope...@li...> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > By now I'm nearly talked into postponing it and considering something > else ... Nooo. I've entered all the notes now. Just trying to work out how to get Sib to pedal properly. -- Phil Holmes |
From: Urs L. <ul...@op...> - 2014-01-10 15:52:47
|
Am 10.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Phil Holmes: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...> > To: "oll-user" <ope...@li...> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge > >> By now I'm nearly talked into postponing it and considering something >> else ... > > > Nooo. I've entered all the notes now. Just trying to work out how to > get Sib to pedal properly. > > -- > Phil Holmes Not discarding. Just doing something else before. And believe me: that PDF you sent is already a gift :-/ Urs |
From: Marc S. <ma...@ou...> - 2014-01-10 16:02:28
|
eOn 1/10/2014 8:34 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > I still would like to keep it (less) complex piano music. What about > the introduction of Chopin's f minor ballad op. 52 (m.1-7) > http://imslp.org/images/7/79/TN-FChopin_Ballade_No.4%2C_Op.52_BH1.jpg > ? Or is this still too complex? Urs I think still too complex as a beginning. There are a number of notations there that one could easily go years without ever encountering unless one specialized in late romantic piano music and that would realistically have most musicians who don't specialize in that sort of music scratching their heads to even understand. Again, it does seem like an interesting challenge, but only after establishing the process using a simpler score. On the other hand, I don't see any reason not to keep the original open, especially given people have already begun working on it. I just think a quick-and-dirty one that doesn't immediately bog people people on esoterica but invites them into the process should be added and people be encouraged to work out the process on that. I'm talking about something that could be knocked out pretty quickly - something like a page out of Anna Magdalena or maybe just a *little* more complex. I know this would not be a "challenge" in the sense of presenting any particular difficulties, but still, I think it would be value for just getting to the point where we are all on the same page, so to speak. And it provides a useful baseline to see how much manual adjustment and how difficult it is in the simple cases before worrying about more complex notations. Marc |
From: Janek W. <lem...@gm...> - 2014-01-10 19:18:39
|
2014/1/10 Marc Sabatella <ma...@ou...> > eOn 1/10/2014 8:34 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > > > I still would like to keep it (less) complex piano music. What about > > the introduction of Chopin's f minor ballad op. 52 (m.1-7) > > http://imslp.org/images/7/79/TN-FChopin_Ballade_No.4%2C_Op.52_BH1.jpg > > ? Or is this still too complex? Urs > > I think still too complex as a beginning. There are a number of > notations there that one could easily go years without ever encountering > unless one specialized in late romantic piano music and that would > realistically have most musicians who don't specialize in that sort of > music scratching their heads to even understand. Again, it does seem > like an interesting challenge, but only after establishing the process > using a simpler score. > > On the other hand, I don't see any reason not to keep the original open, > especially given people have already begun working on it. I just think > a quick-and-dirty one that doesn't immediately bog people people on > esoterica but invites them into the process should be added and people > be encouraged to work out the process on that. I'm talking about > something that could be knocked out pretty quickly - something like a > page out of Anna Magdalena or maybe just a *little* more complex. I > know this would not be a "challenge" in the sense of presenting any > particular difficulties, but still, I think it would be value for just > getting to the point where we are all on the same page, so to speak. > And it provides a useful baseline to see how much manual adjustment and > how difficult it is in the simple cases before worrying about more > complex notations. I completely agree! Janek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... |