Hi folks,
as you can see, i'm falling behind with lilypond stuff, but i wanted
to let you know that i've skimmed through this discussion and it LGTM.
The only comment i have is: try to make things as simple as possible
(but not simpler, of course) - i wouldn't like openlilylib getting a
Am 20.07.2014 11:10, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi folks,
as you can see, i'm falling behind with lilypond stuff, but i wanted
to let you know that i've skimmed through this discussion and it LGTM.
The only comment i have is: try to make things as simple as possible
(but not simpler, of course) - i
Am 07.07.2014 16:48, schrieb Paul Morris:
Urs Liska wrote
Hm, I think I_must not_ start with such a script right now, since I
know that this - although being not too complex - will eat up too much
of my time and concentration.
But your message triggered a little bit of thought, and I came to
pull request.
(I think this should be done _with_ review and not be left to
the authors' discretion)
Urs
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164086.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Am 07.07.2014 09:55, schrieb Urs Liska:
Maybe we can have a compromise. A script parsing the content of the tags
field from all files shouldn't be hard to write. So we could:
- agree upon an initial set of categories
- agree upon a naming convention for tags
(e.g. the same
Am 07.07.2014 10:37, schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 07.07.2014 09:55, schrieb Urs Liska:
Maybe we can have a compromise. A script parsing the content of the tags
field from all files shouldn't be hard to write. So we could:
- agree upon an initial set of categories
- agree upon a naming convention for
Hi Urs and all,
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
according to the path they are stored in.
Should we have a dedicated folder
Am 07.07.2014 11:37, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
Hi Urs and all,
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
according to the path they
Am 07.07.2014 11:46, schrieb Urs Liska:
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
according to the path they are stored in.
Should
Am 07.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
Am 07.07.2014 11:46, schrieb Urs Liska:
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164121.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
renamed)
- clean up and tag the snippets. One by one and using pull request.
(I think this should be done _with_ review and not be left to
the authors' discretion)
Sounds fine to me.
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss
the principle of
doing the simplest thing that will do the job, in this case helping people
find the files/snippets they're interested in.
Starting by tagging the existing snippets sounds fine to me.
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss
but collecting suggestions first. Then decide about a
set of tags and apply them during the move.
Urs
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164079.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
is
how their authors were tagging them).
(I guess this might mean moving the files first and then working on the
tags?)
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164086.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive
Am 05.07.2014 05:30, schrieb Paul Morris:
Uns Liska wrote
I can see the point and I'm ready to accept that approach. There is one
issue, however, that I'd like to discuss before making any decision.
\include file-name.ily
opens the door wide for name conflicts. The more the names are
Am 05.07.2014 10:31, schrieb Urs Liska:
Thanks.
I think we will have to reconsider our metadata section and then do the
transfer in that reorganization branch. I strongly suggest to
excusively do that using pull requests, even among the members with push
access.
One more thing I would suggest
.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164033.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
-fonts.
I had partially done that already, but only on the Wiki, not in the
README. I've now updated both (this duplication isn't intended to be
persistent...).
Urs
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring
better.
Thanks for the feedback
Urs
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163950.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user
Sounds interesting, but I don't thing the time is ready for that. There
has been discussion of providing a structure similar to the TEXMF tree
in LaTeX distributions. This would be a place where library additions
or packages could be stored to and made available in the official
LilyPond
Am 03.07.2014 17:51, schrieb Noeck:
Hi,
I like your ideas on the wiki.
- I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
However, it means that the content of the library doubles (one folder
and one ily).
I am
2014-07-04 12:23 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org:
- I don't see yet what would go into »specific instruments/repertoire«
For example shortcuts for staff changes in piano music.
Snippets for specific bending techniques for guitar.
Lute tablature.
This way the bending techniques
2014-07-03 17:51 GMT+02:00 Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de:
I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
Me too, speaking file names are much better
___
lilypond-user
using the
library.
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163986.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
2014-07-04 17:14 GMT+02:00 Paul Morris p...@paulwmorris.com:
One nice thing about decoupling the actual location of the files (their
include path) from the categories/tags/navigation structure, is that you
can
change the latter as needed as the library changes and matures, without
breaking
Am 04.07.2014 17:14, schrieb Paul Morris:
Uns Liska wrote
Am 03.07.2014 19:50, schrieb Paul Morris:
Hi Urs, This is looking like an improvement to me. Here's a thought.
If
the emphasis is on include-ability, what about just having all the
include
files at the same level in the Library
:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163999.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi to all interested or involved in the openlilylib (a.k.a openlilylib
snippets) repository.
Our repository has now lived for some time, and I think it is a good
thing to have and maintain. The recent renaming was partially intended
to stress its nature as an _includable_ library (as opposed
Hi,
I like your ideas on the wiki.
- I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
However, it means that the content of the library doubles (one folder
and one ily).
I am not sure, if it is a good idea, but
at some point.)
In any case, I think having fewer and broader categories is generally
better.
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163950.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:
Our repository has now lived for some time, and I think it is a good thing
to have and maintain. The recent renaming was partially intended to stress
its nature as an _includable_ library (as opposed to the official LSR). But
32 matches
Mail list logo
