Hi Lukas, > a) "Unstable" versions are, in fact, very stable in LilyPond - they > don't usually crash more often than a 'stable' version. The instability > only means that new features are not guaranteed to remain unchanged.
And this I think is exactly why using unstable versions is not really suitable for an online score writing and sharing system like this one. With stable versions Jocelyn has to support essentially one lilypond version (since stable generally implies that patch releases don’t break API). With unstable this would mean she has to support potentially every unstable version out there. I think offering compilation against the latest unstable version or something is a nice feature. But supporting every single development version out there is going to be a lot — and probably not necessary. > b) "Unstable" versions are released quite frequently and sometimes > contain all sorts of cool new features. For instance, in > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.27/Documentation/changes/rhythm-improvements > I find \beamBreak, a personal favourite of mine that I couldn't get > finished in time for the 2.26 cycle. For some music, I wouldn't want to > miss it today. > > c) "Stable" versions are released quite infrequently, and thus, users > who only use stable versions sometimes have to wait very long until they > can use all those great new features mentioned in b). Supporting latest unstable release already gives you these features if you really need them. Rather I think it would be good to not just support current stable and current development, but to support at least the last n stable releases for score to keep working even if there is a new Lilypond release. Cheers, Tina
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
