Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/3/9 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On 3/8/11, Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> wrote:
>> i don't see any discussion going on here, so i assume you agree to
>> shortening the 32nd unbeamed stem.
>> I attach the patch.
>
> IMO, there are two steps to this type of change:
>
> 1. discuss the aesthetics (or "beautiful notation").  That discussion
> seems to be over.
>
> 2. discuss the technical patch.  That discussion may or may not be
> over, but I haven't seen it "officially" start.
>
> Could you upload this patch to rietveld?  Once that's done, if the
> patch passes the "obvious" checks, I'll include it in a 48-hour patch
> countdown.

Done. http://codereview.appspot.com/4243071/

> Sorry for the extra caution, but I'm not going to push changes to the
> fonts on my own authority.  I want to give plenty of time for people
> familiar with the topic to object, once it's clear that we have a
> precise patch on the table rather than a general discussion..

No problem. I thought this patch is so simple (it's only changing one
number in define-grobs.scm) that it doesn't need discussing.
However, i forgot to modify downstem 32nd flag - it should be a bit shorter too.
I'll fix this right now.

cheers,
Janek