dak-3 wrote: > > Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:29AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >>> -d means no update in version header unless changes happen. That is >>> also usually what you would want. Without -d, the version of the last >>> applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually >>> causing a change). >>> >>> In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already >>> newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the >>> version header even without -d. >> >> If we did that, then people would complain "I'm using 2.16.2 but >> convert-ly only updates my file to 2.16.0!". > > Which is exactly what is happening when the last rule of convert-ly is > for 2.16.0 while the current version is 2.16.2. > >> This could be avoided by printing a message to the effect of "no >> changes to apply; not changing version number in the file". > > Eluze converted for 2.15.41 with convert-ly from 2.15.41 and the file > already being at 2.15.41, and he complained that the version header was > set back to 2.15.40. > >> As a general rule, I don't think it matters whether we make -d or not >> -d the default; > > That was not even the question. > >> what matters most is providing good information to the user in some >> combination of program output and/or documentation. > > I prefer changing useless behavior over documenting it. > >
+1 first of all I'm relieved it is only a shallow bug and the functionality of convert-ly is not touched. the actual behavior is somewhat confusing, but tbh I only detected this after using it for several years. thanks Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/retrograding-with-convert-ly-tp34160943p34166631.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
