I love the propagate properties function. Huge time saver. Only issue, it will propagate all the breaks etc, but it does not propagate withs of system overrides. Am I missing something?
You’re not missing anything. Changes made in the Note Spacing and Staff spacing tools in Engrave mode are not included when propagating part formatting. I don’t know why, it would certainly make a lot of sense if they where included. I believe this has been requested before (ideally I’d like a dialog that lets the user decide what formatting changes should be propagated and that includes those changes feature-request ).
IMHO the manual is not very clear about this, since it mentions that note spacing changes are included in part propagation:
But it fails to mention that note spacing changes made with the Note spacing tool in Engrave mode (which definitely also are note spacing changes according to the same manual) are not included. Mentioning the fact that staff spacing changes are not included also wouldn’t hurt.
@Avremi_Gourarie as for the example in your screenshot, have you tried achieving this result by playing with the settings for horizontal justification of final systems in Layout options? Perhaps you can achieve what you want there without having to do manual spacing changes, which could save you the trouble of having to do this for each layout individually.
It’s tricky to describe the nuances between these different ways of controlling the horizontal spacing of music! That’s why I deliberately used the verb “adjust” rather than “change” when it came to describing how to use note spacing handles in Engrave mode, as opposed to the Engrave > Note Spacing Change dialog and signpost method.
When the manual refers to a “note spacing change”, it means a note spacing change that comes from the signpost and its associated settings. The manual doesn’t refer to “staff spacing changes”, because there is no vertical spacing equivalent to the Note Spacing Change dialog.
I appreciate that “manual changes to note spacing” and a “note spacing change” are linguistically and conceptually very similar, and sympathise with any confusion.
Using your own convention, couldn’t you say “adjustments to note spacing” or “manual adjustments to note spacing”? The idea of an adjustment vs a change makes perfect sense to me.
Edit: Nevermind, I misread Lillie’s post.
That’s precisely what I have tried to do in the manual; in my forum post above I was emulating language that I’ve seen others use colloquially.
Ah, sorry—I completely misread your post!
Ah, thanks for clarifying! Now that you’ve mentioned this I won’t forget it, but I’m afraid there’s a fair chance that these kinds of nuances are lost on non-native English speakers (I’m not sure how the words change and adjustment relate to each other in English but the equivalents in my native Dutch are nigh interchangeable, which wouldn’t make them very suitable to indicate a distinctive difference between two features in the context of a manual).
Well, it does in other articles…
But my point was rather that it isn’t mentioned that these staff spacing changes manual adjustments made with the Staff Spacing tool are not included when one checks the Include system formatting option. 
Which is consistent in its own right because the article only mentions what is included and not what’s excluded… but making these things explicit would prevent some of the confusion. (Just my 2 cents, I’ll refrain from any further unsollicited advice 
).
I’ve made a note to review my terminology again here, clearly I wasn’t as consistent as I’d thought!
And yes I understand your point, but if we always listed what was and also wasn’t included in any operation, there’d be a risk of there being too much detail.
