Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2

[address@hidden]

On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:

> Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
>>> In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
>>> together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
>>> beamed with the others:
>>> 
>>> \relative c'' {
>>>     \time 3/4
>>>     c8 c c c c c
>>>     r c c c c c
>>> }
>> It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
>> regression.
>> 
>> In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
>> rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
>> preserve the 3-beat character. In:
>> 
>> \relative c'' {
>>    \time 3/4
>>     r4 r8 c c c
>>  }
>> 
>> the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
>> be avoided.
>> 
>> Toine Schreurs
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such 
> reports.
> Don't know if this applies here, but:
> A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has 
> _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once 
> been fixed to work in that specific way.
> If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression 
> but just a newly introduced bug.
> Best
> Urs

Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in 
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous 
version is a regression.  People can then either report it as a change, at 
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old 
functionality is restored.

Cheers,
MS