>> IMHO, that change is too important for a 2.4... it would require a >> 3.0 because it is not just adding features, it is also breaking all > >old scores. 2.4 should properly compile all files created with 2.x > >which won't be the case if I understood well. > >For what it's worth, I agree with this opinion. If scores created >before the change won't work after the change (and vice versa) then a >change to last part of the version number just doesn't capture the >severity of the shift.
>At the same time, the underlying architecture in the code hasn't >changed, meaning that a change to the main version number seems overkill. I>f we had a three tiered version number, I'd say this warranted a middle >number change (as the underlying architecture hasn't changed). Might it >be worth switching to a three tiered version number in order to handle >this, or are we so far along that we need to live with a two-tiered system? Might want to look into, and potentially adopt, semantic version numbering: http://semver.org But even with a three-tiered numbering system, something that breaks old scores would need to bump the major (first number). X.Y.Z rc X - Major - Increments if any existing features are broken, or things written for it stop compiling properly. Y - Minor - New features added. Z - Patch - Bug fixes (rc - release candidate) A project is never too far along to adopt good practices. Cheers. -Adam Michael Wood On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Gregorio-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gregorio-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Gregorio-commits] r1332 - in /trunk: fonts/ > plugins/gregoriotex/ tex/ (Br. Samuel Springuel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:40:28 -0400 > From: "Br. Samuel Springuel" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Gregorio-devel] [Gregorio-commits] r1332 - in /trunk: > fonts/ plugins/gregoriotex/ tex/ > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 2014-05-06 3:43 AM, Olivier Berten wrote: > > IMHO, that change is too important for a 2.4... it would require a > > 3.0 because it is not just adding features, it is also breaking all > > old scores. 2.4 should properly compile all files created with 2.x > > which won't be the case if I understood well. > > For what it's worth, I agree with this opinion. If scores created > before the change won't work after the change (and vice versa) then a > change to last part of the version number just doesn't capture the > severity of the shift. > > At the same time, the underlying architecture in the code hasn't > changed, meaning that a change to the main version number seems overkill. > > If we had a three tiered version number, I'd say this warranted a middle > number change (as the underlying architecture hasn't changed). Might it > be worth switching to a three tiered version number in order to handle > this, or are we so far along that we need to live with a two-tiered system? > > >> Hmmm, changing the name of the fonts it, I believe, a bad idea, but > >> I'll try to find a mechanism to find the version of a font... > > > If people are using these fonts elsewhere or simply if they want to > > edit an older pdf, the new fonts will break it if they replace the > > old ones. I think the new fonts should be called something like > > "greciliae new" or "greciliae 3" for compatiblity with several years > > of works already created with Gregorio. I think it's a very very bad > > idea to give 2 fonts the same name if they don't give the same > > result. > > I'm torn on this one, too. The fact that the glyph remapping means that > documents which were intelligible before the change will be > unintelligible after the change implies to me that we need to mark that > prominently and changing the font name certainly does that. > > On the other hand, all the change does (if I understand it correctly) is > move the glyphs from one code range (where they shouldn't have been in > the first place, according to the standards) to another. The glyphs > themselves are the same so we don't really have a new font. > > > So, yeah, I guess I don't have anything really definitive to add to this > discussion. Here are my thoughts anyway, in case they're useful to > someone else in ironing out their own. > ????????????????????????? > Br. Samuel, OSB > (R. Padraic Springuel) > > PAX ? ??????? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Gregorio-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Gregorio-devel Digest, Vol 57, Issue 3 > ********************************************* >
_______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
