Repeat and coda
I need help with this piece. I don't know if it is a bug, or I am doing something wrong.
1. Only repeats two times.
2. Go "To Coda" is being ignored.
Thanks in advanced.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Repeat and Coda testing.mscz | 3.03 KB |
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Right-click into the last measure before the end repeat bar, measure properties, increase repeat count to 3
In reply to Right-click into the last by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks, by changing the repeat count to 3 and adding "1, 2" to the repeat list of the line, the repeat worked. What about the "To Coda?" It is still being ignored.
Thanks in advanced.
I just noticed that, in my reply, I uploaded the wrong file. Here is the file with the "repeat" problem fixed, but still the "To Coda" is being ignored. Thanks again.
In reply to To Coda by Coquidragon
there are problem in 1.x with jumps out of repeats. Seems solved in the next release, in a recent nightly build it plays correctly
In reply to there are problem in 1.x with by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks for letting me know. I just downloaded the nightly and it worked perfectly.
How do I close this post?
In reply to Nightly by Coquidragon
No need to close. Be warned that the nightly is not ready for production use. Do not use it for serious work you want to keep. A file created with a nightly might not open in a next nightly.
To other forum contributors, please add this advice when you talk about nightlies since it's not obvious for everyone that nightlies are not ready for prime time and just a development snapshot.
In reply to No need to close. Be warned by [DELETED] 5
Don't you think the warning on the download page is enough?
Nightly versions are produced from the code of MuseScore that is being developed. They are intended for testers and advanced users who want to experiment with new features, or need access to the latest bug fixes and are willing to risk the instability of an unfinished product. Use at your own risk.
If it is not, I guess it need to be extended...
In reply to Don't you think the warning by Jojo-Schmitz
I think things like this cannot be in too many places. The question is, "is it redundant, or will it diminish the amount of time and effort to reply to these questions?".
In reply to Don't you think the warning by Jojo-Schmitz
'A file created with a nightly might not open in a next nightly.'
Regards.
In reply to Important to also mention (besides crash/instability)?... by Jm6stringer
OK, I've added that
In reply to No need to close. Be warned by [DELETED] 5
I agree with lasconic that it's important for those of us who mention nightly builds to people who weren't already aware of them to make it clear we are not advocating actually *using* the nightly builds for real work.
I tend to mention them if someone reports a bug or requests a feature here on the forum that is already addressed for 2.0. The implication is that they don't have to worry about submitting an actual issue to the tracker, and they can also be satisfied knowing their concerns are being addressed. In these cases, it's probably best to not even mention that they can download a nightly build to see for themselves, and I'll try to keep this in mind.
But also, if someone reports a bug that I cannot verify myself has already been fixed for 2.0, I'll suggest they download a nightly to try for themselves. Similarly, if they have a suggest for an improvement that is maybe partially addressed by 2.0, I'll suggest they try a nightly build to see if the improvements are enough or if they can make more specific suggestions. These are probably the cases where it is most important to stress that the nightly are for testing purposes only.
In reply to No need to close. Be warned by [DELETED] 5
Thanks for the warning. Actually, since this post, I've been going to Nightly only for the bugs. I do what I need to do, I save the file as a .xml, and then, continue to use 1.3.