David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Mutopia's biggest weakness is not that it is missing new contributions > but rather that the existing contributions become unusable. > > So what's needed is: > a) automated run of convert-ly to all following available stable versions > b) an interface for people to say "PDF for upgraded file looks ok" > c) an interface for people to fix up files that fail after convert-ly or > are unnecessary complex given new LilyPond features. > d) grading/voting mechanisms for scores/contributors > e) obsoleting files when they have been converted and the version is > really outdated (like, beyond Debian Stale from one year ago) > > At the current point of time, Mutopia is a large bitrot graveyard. If > one makes it easy to crowdsource and/or automate the _maintenance_ of > files and make the various versions available, it might become a lot > more active.
Oh, and perhaps let people associate update/entry work with bitcoin and Paypal addresses so that downloaders can easily transfer a suggested fee, and that one can, say, point to an IMSLP source of public domain photocopies and say "having them in LilyPond 2.16 would be worth $x to me". Or "having this 2.12 source in 2.18 and using the new ??? syntax would be worth $x to me", with the ability of multiple people to pitch in. The success of LilyPond-based projects like SCORA <URL:http://www.flanderstoday.eu/innovation/leuven-orchestra-uses-tablet-follow-music-scores> ultimately depends on a reasonable availability of workers who are willing to prepare LilyPond scores for a fee. Without that, the projects don't scale. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
