Mats Bengtsson writes: > I have to agree with others on this list. Jan and Han-Wen do a > terrific job with LilyPond. One of the few objections I have is > that they sometimes are too eager to adopt new technology.
Yes, possibly. The point is that I believe in open source, and broken software needs to go or get fixed as quickly as possible, especially when it takes time to work around. > Of course it would be nice to be able to view pictures with > examples also in the info version of the document, but I see > absolutely no reason for LilyPond to be a pioneer for this > feature. I can think of a reason :-) LilyPond's info docs are the ones that gain most by adding images. Much more so than say, gcc's. > When the technology has stabilized and is available > on most installations, we can take the step. Adopting it early is a way to stabilize it. I wrote the technology a year(!) ago, let's get it being used already. > I'm afraid you underestimate the number of people who actually > compile LilyPond themselves and have to struggle with development > versions of other tools just to be able to build LilyPond. Possibly. We try our best to discourage people to do so. I see no reason whatsoever for a user to compile LilyPond. There are fairly recent development snapshots for Red Hat, Debian and even Cygwin nowadays. > At the moment (at least before 2.1.28), the situations is fairly > good, I only needed to upgrade Guile and install mftrace with friends (note that you don't need any custom software to build LilyPond on Debian/unstable) > to be able to compile LilyPond on a standard RedHat 9.0 machine. > Please, don't make this situation worse. Ok. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
