Urs and all,
What happens to orphaned git repos? Not a case I am familiar with.
I'd be happy to fork the OLL repo and take over the management and
development. Should I do that? Are you going to delete the existing
repo?
Andrew
Urs, I am unable to email you at openlilylib.org. Is there another way
to contact you off list?
Andrew
I think that Urs did not say he's taking it down. I think he did say he's not
making his future improvements public. He's leaving it up on GitHib, but his
work will be in a private Git repository.
Thanks,
Carl
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT 4G LTE smartphone
Get Outlook for
Urs,
I don't follow. Are you taking down OLL? There are surely many who
depend on it. It's not clear to me what you are saying. I fear you have
reached the wrong conclusion. Even if it is of value to only a dozen
people, is it not still valuable? Don't underestimate the importance - I
could
Well, despite two of today's statements arguing otherwise I must say I
have come to a different conclusion. I have given myself exactly two
weeks to make a determination, and I realized I have obviously
overestimated the value and impact of my pet project openLilyLib. The
two weeks until yesterday
\reshape is nice! I would try to make it clear in the documentation, if
\reshape is included in the core, that \shape is the legacy form to be
eventually deprecated and replaced by \reshape. Syntactically, it makes no
sense to have both functions available for the same thing. If there could be
>> \reshape ?
>
> Dude… nice work. =)
Care to submit a MR?
Werner
On 10/6/2020 11:23 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
\reshape ?
Dude… nice work. =)
Made me smile, too. I think that's approaching the perfect amount of
self-reference humor, without crossing the line to guaranteed obscurity
for newcomers.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
> \reshape ?
Dude… nice work. =)
Kieren.
Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
On 2020-10-06 8:45 am, Carl Sorensen wrote:
If \shapeII is production ready, then I'm OK with adding it. But is
should
NOT be named \shapeII when it goes into core. It should be something
like
\shapeControl. \shapeII reflects the history that it came after the
creation of \shape. \shape
Sorry, I just discovered that the installation instructions for cloning
with Git explain how to clone oll-core. Not having had any experience
myself with cloning with Git before, I thought I had cloned the whole
repository. I didn't realize the packages had to be cloned separately one
by one.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Bernard
wrote:
> Hi JanPeter,
>
>
>
> One thing that concerns me with lilypond at the present is what I see
> as a sort of balkanisation of code. We have LSR, OLL, and people
> making one-shot GIT repos, and it's all very fragmented. I don't think
> this
Hi JanPeter,
I have contributed a bit to OLL and its machinery and I think it is an
important and indeed necessary resource. I am not sure why the uptake
is so limited, but I think somehow we have to communicate how easy it
is to install and use more effectively.
One thing that concerns me with
Hi all,
I would like to repeat Urs' call to participate in the work of OLL. I
share the opinion that it is a very versatile and powerful toolbox. My
own contributions are mainly the edition-engraver and the
lalily-templates. If you have any questions about what they are and how
they work, feel
14 matches
Mail list logo
