Le mardi 04 août 2009 à 01:12 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit : > Yes, but what if somebody reads the LM, looks at the source, then > accuses us of lying when we claimed "no tweaks were used"? I > wouldn't blame that person at all!
Of course, I rather meant lilyond-book trickery, which we probably shouldn't use lilypond-book for the examples (see below). > You mean "download these PDF" links? Ick, this is rapidly > becoming complicated. It shouldn't be more complicated than the old Examples page, but Python scripting will be replaced by Texinfo macros you started defining. > The point of Examples is to showcase our > features... ok, it seems like dumping these into LSR and including > them in Snippets makes more sense. That'll give you the desired > source and pdf generation. After a bit of thinking, it would be easier to call lilypond directly, as it's currently done for the old Examples. > Just how much time do you want to spend on buildscript in Aug? You mean until December? ;-) More seriously, I'd like to get done with build system janitoring at the beginning of September, then move to more interesting aspects of development. > This is going to add yet more complexity -- to GUB, as well as the > lilypond build scripts. Seriously, I think this would add at > least 20 hours to your workload. All just to generate 13 png > images in an alternate way? Is that /really/ a good idea? > > Since 2.13.4 is being held up because GUB is broken, I don't think > that extra complexity is a great idea. Yes, even power users could run lilypond and output-distance on entire input file directories and detect changes in formatting. This is a goal for 2.14, or more reasonnably after 2.14.0. > Our word "stable" refers to the input syntax, so it still has > meaning. I certainly admit that we want to avoid regressions in a > stable branch, but we already have the regtests (which nobody > looks at) for this purpose! Regtests comparisons should be enough to check the regtests, I don't know if they still work. > Yes. I mean, if somebody asked me "hey, want to break this now?", > I'd say no, of course. But a regression occurs, I'm not going to > cry. And more to the point, I'm not going to expend a lot of > energy trying to ensure that no regressions occur. Given the lack > of *other* people willing expend this effort, I don't think I'm > unique in this regard. If you are willing to allow development on stable branch with accepting regressions, then please put a big fat warning on the download page to warn about this, otherwise we'll have many complaints from users. I think allowing development with regressions in stable branch without having working regtests comparison is unsane. > Fair enough -- but could you add a post-build rule to rename > general.info/pdf/html to lilypond.info/pdf/html ? Not worth the effort. DIY if you like. > I ran into problems with score line-width vs. complete paper > width. In particular, it was the Vocal music example. I assume knowing/fixing the paper width is easy, isn't it? John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
