Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/16/20, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: >> IMHO only bugfixes should be applied to `musicxml2ly` since `xml2ly` >> covers much more of MusixXML (and will, AFAIK, also eventually support >> its successor, MNX). > > Huh. xml2ly has very different requirements than musicxml2ly and is > (AFAICS) unlikely to ever be integrated into LilyPond. Anecdotally, I > have encountered several cases where musicxml2ly turned to provide > much more useful output than xml2ly (but that was a couple of years > ago, maybe its development has sped up since then). > > Plus, since we’re discussing python-based tools, there are a few > useful functions being developed in python-ly (as part of > Frescobaldi), which share a bit more DNA with musicxml2ly than with > anything else. So I wouldn’t count musicxml2ly out just yet.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with maintaining tools while they are used and distributed. In a corporate setting, alloting large amounts of resources into a part of the tool set that has a perspective to be replaced in the course of a corporate development makes of course little sense. We aren't there. We have no timetable for a replacement or its viability, and so I don't see the point in discouraging contributors from making fixes to what will continue for an indeterminate time to be part of the tool set useful for achieving objectives. -- David Kastrup
