Am Sonntag, dem 20.03.2022 um 15:48 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:38 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
> Discussions on LilyPond development:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:10 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > >
Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:38 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:10 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > > Le 17 mars 2022 à 20:35, Jonas Hahnfeld > >
> > > Now merged. And while you can continue building with Guile
> [...] I'd like to manage the releases for some time now.
+1, and thanks!
Werner
Le 18/03/2022 à 08:38, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Am Freitag, dem 18.03.2022 um 00:55 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
One other thought in passing: should we
write to maintainers of popular distros to let them know
that we've switched to Guile 2?
What would you write them at the current point in
Am Freitag, dem 18.03.2022 um 00:55 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> One other thought in passing: should we
> write to maintainers of popular distros to let them know
> that we've switched to Guile 2?
What would you write them at the current point in time? That current
master has switched to
Just wanted to say this is great
L
Le 17/03/2022 à 22:38, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:10 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
Le 17 mars 2022 à 20:35, Jonas Hahnfeld
One more thing: I suppose you want an unstable release to happen rather
sooner than later now there we're on Guile 2, is there a moment
Am Donnerstag, dem 17.03.2022 um 22:10 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > Le 17 mars 2022 à 20:35, Jonas Hahnfeld >
> > Now merged. And while you can continue building with Guile 1.8 (for
> > now), I hope we can remove that code soon after the next release. So
> > please don't do this and switch
> Le 17 mars 2022 à 20:35, Jonas Hahnfeld
> Now merged. And while you can continue building with Guile 1.8 (for
> now), I hope we can remove that code soon after the next release. So
> please don't do this and switch your builds to Guile 2.2
One more thing: I suppose you want an unstable
Am Mittwoch, dem 16.03.2022 um 17:30 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 19/02/2022 à 17:57, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
> > Guile 2.2.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Pasting this link for future reference:
>
>
Le 19/02/2022 à 17:57, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
Guile 2.2.
After the release of 2.23.6, there were reports of major problems on
Windows, namely that the binaries were broken when extracted with the
Windows
Le 26/02/2022 à 15:10, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Am Samstag, dem 26.02.2022 um 14:47 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
Le 26/02/2022 à 13:51, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
The Scheme compilation felt much slower, and for C++ ccache takes away
a lot of the pain of recompiles. It also appears to be
Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 08:18 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development:
> Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 00:08 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > >
> > > See https://gitlab.com/hahnjo/lilypond/-/commits/guile2-bytecode Let me
> > > know if this is miraculously
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:13 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luca Fascione
> wrote:
> > is it true that if you double the source size you double the compilation
> time?
>
> it should be, but we have rather complicated page breaking code that
> is so hairy that
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:02 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > The same happens for C++ files, you also have to recompile. But it's
> > > true that editing scm files isn't for free anymore.
> >
> > The Scheme compilation felt much slower, and for C++ ccache takes away
> > a lot of the pain of
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luca Fascione wrote:
> In other words, is it approximately true that "for (almost) any real-life
> score the total compilation time
> is proportional to the number of NoteHeads, past a certain size"?
> I'm guessing you need a few pages worth of material to kill
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:31 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > I never said I don't want to fix Guile 2.2 bugs, and you should know
> > as I spent lots and lots of time debugging #6218. I also said I
> > support moving CI to 2.2, so any MR would pass against 2.2.
> >
> > I am just asking to not
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 10:48 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> [Jonas]
> > He, I always thought auto-compilation didn't optimize! now don't
> > tell me Guile also applies optimizations while just reading and
> > supposedly interpreting code...
>
> I don't think it does. At least, you don't
Am Sonntag, dem 27.02.2022 um 01:04 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:02 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > while we make work slower for folks that work on large
> > > scores and can afford to side-install Guile 1.8. It also makes
> > > development slower for ourselves.
Le 27/02/2022 à 01:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:02 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
while we make work slower for folks that work on large
scores and can afford to side-install Guile 1.8. It also makes
development slower for ourselves. Yes, that means some of us will
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:02 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > while we make work slower for folks that work on large
> > scores and can afford to side-install Guile 1.8. It also makes
> > development slower for ourselves. Yes, that means some of us will
> > develop on a different platform than many
[David]
I think where we ultimately want to end up is to have Guile use
optimisation for code loaded from .scm files (which should likely use
byte compilation) while not doing so for Guile code and definitions
invoked from .ly files with # and $ because those more likely than not
are not part
Jean,
how many times did you run these tests?
Eyeballing your numbers it seems there's effectively no difference in
execution time opt/no-opt and 2.2/3.0.
Is the 5% a stable figure, or is it just a one-sample thing?
Would it be a passable inference that the reason the optimizer has
effectively no
Am Samstag, dem 26.02.2022 um 14:47 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 26/02/2022 à 13:51, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
> > The Scheme compilation felt much slower, and for C++ ccache takes away
> > a lot of the pain of recompiles. It also appears to be
> > single-threaded? I admit not having timed
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> For one thing, Guile's optimization make about zero difference for the
> speed of the resulting LilyPond executable. For another, disabling
> optimizations in Guile 2 already results in a good speedup (1min
> to 20s), and while Guile 3 is even slower than Guile 2 at the
Le 26/02/2022 à 13:51, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
The Scheme compilation felt much slower, and for C++ ccache takes away
a lot of the pain of recompiles. It also appears to be
single-threaded? I admit not having timed it in detail.
OK, I have very good news regarding compilation speed.
Am Samstag, dem 26.02.2022 um 13:51 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:36 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> >
> > > * The concern over CI minutes seems like it's the least important: we
> > > can buy more computing power (I'm happy to sponsor), and is the
> > > duration of CI
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:36 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > * I'm worried that introducing a new version of lilypond that is
> > significantly slower than older versions creates an incentive for
> > users to stay on older versions.
> >
> > * I grepped our source code for "guile-2" (scm) and
Le 25/02/2022 à 08:41, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
Le 25/02/2022 à 08:18, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
If so, that clears my concerns.
Just to be sure, can you be more precise here? Does it also clear the
concerns about entirely dropping the code for Guile 1.8?
If it turns out to work on
Le 25/02/2022 à 08:18, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
If so, that clears my concerns.
Just to be sure, can you be more precise here? Does it also clear the
concerns about entirely dropping the code for Guile 1.8?
If it turns out to work on Windows, it clears that
category of concern, yes. The
Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 00:08 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > > I read over this thread, but I don't understand what you mean by
> > > "downstreams" here.
> >
> > In my understanding, it's about "downstreams" packaging LilyPond,
> > including Linux distributions and parties like HomeBrew
[Han-Wen]
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
Friends,
I don't see this thread coming to a conclusion if it stays between the same
three people, and the topic is somewhat important to LilyPond's future. More
voices would be helpful.
Here are my thoughts:
Thanks for
[There is much to reply to so I'll make several emails.]
Hi Luca,
Le 24/02/2022 à 09:13, Luca Fascione a écrit :
In case it's useful, I'll share my impressions as a recent addition to
this group.
I have some experience with rolling out software, gathered in a
different field.
Where I come
Am Donnerstag, dem 24.02.2022 um 18:25 +0100 schrieb Luca Fascione:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 5:44 PM Jonas Hahnfeld
> wrote:
> > I will not reply to most of your message; I suspect that your
> > experience comes from a corporate environment where people are paid
> > full time to work on
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
writes:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 24.02.2022 um 09:13 +0100 schrieb Luca Fascione:
>> Last thought: as I am currently learning Scheme and Guile, and I
>> noticed 3.0.x has been out for a couple years now and seems to be
>> benchmarking with
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 5:44 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> I will not reply to most of your message; I suspect that your
> experience comes from a corporate environment where people are paid
> full time to work on software.
It does, yes.
> In my opinion, many of the points are
> simply not
Hi,
I will not reply to most of your message; I suspect that your
experience comes from a corporate environment where people are paid
full time to work on software. In my opinion, many of the points are
simply not relevant in a relatively small community of volunteers, for
example the release
In case it's useful, I'll share my impressions as a recent addition to this
group.
I have some experience with rolling out software, gathered in a different
field.
Where I come from we release often (I think we've averaged in the 30+ cuts
per year, roughly 2 every 3 weeks), and our users have
Am Mittwoch, dem 23.02.2022 um 16:37 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> writes:
>
> > > If we need to kill 1.8 support because it blocks something important,
> > > then so be it, but given the impact on lilypond development, I'd try
> > > to
>> [First of all: Thanks, Jonas, for releasing 2.22.2 today!]
>
> [Well, I didn't do this alone, Phil does most of the actual release
> procedure like editing the right files that both of us keep
> forgetting and things like that]
D'oh, sorry for that omission, Phil – many cudos to you, too!
> See https://gitlab.com/hahnjo/lilypond/-/commits/guile2-bytecode Let
> me know if this is miraculously sufficient to make people happy and
> I can open a merge request.
For me, this looks very good, thanks.
Werner
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
writes:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 23.02.2022 um 12:09 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
>> * I grepped our source code for "guile-2" (scm) and GUILEV2, but the
>> divergence of code paths seems pretty minor. Sure, it's inconvenient
>> to have the
Am Mittwoch, dem 23.02.2022 um 12:09 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> >
> > Friends,
> >
> > I don't see this thread coming to a conclusion if it stays between the same
> > three people, and the topic is somewhat important to
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> I don't see this thread coming to a conclusion if it stays between the same
> three people, and the topic is somewhat important to LilyPond's future. More
> voices would be helpful.
Here are my thoughts:
* GUB needs to
Am Dienstag, dem 22.02.2022 um 09:02 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development:
> Am Montag, dem 21.02.2022 um 22:44 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply, I hoped to have a merge request
> > ready to implement but life is getting in
Am Dienstag, dem 22.02.2022 um 11:29 -0600 schrieb Karlin High:
> On 2/22/2022 10:55 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > In particular, we can't tell non-developers "Please use the
> > current development version, which works very reliably" and introduce
> > a severe slowness at the same time.
>
>
Am Dienstag, dem 22.02.2022 um 16:55 + schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> [First of all: Thanks, Jonas, for releasing 2.22.2 today!]
[Well, I didn't do this alone, Phil does most of the actual release
procedure like editing the right files that both of us keep forgetting
and things like that]
> I
I expect this has been considered before,
but what is it that makes it unpalatable to have a step like initex for TeX
to build the .go files upon installation?
Wouldn't it solve the issue at hand?
(The portability would be addressed by the fact that it's the target
platform to build online,
and
On 2/22/2022 10:55 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
In particular, we can't tell non-developers "Please use the
current development version, which works very reliably" and introduce
a severe slowness at the same time.
Perhaps that advice could be suspended for one series of development
versions?
Hi all,
> there are two types of testers of development versions.
>
> (1) The casual user that needs this and that feature fixed, and who
>isn't satisfied with the stable release and curious enough to
>update. I think that we are going to lose a significant portion
>of people if
[First of all: Thanks, Jonas, for releasing 2.22.2 today!]
I guess most people like me lack the skills to give helpful comments,
so they stay silent. The only part where I can voice an opinion is
the following.
>> Meanwhile, please take a look at reality: Linux distributions are
>> switching
Am Montag, dem 21.02.2022 um 22:44 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the late reply, I hoped to have a merge request
> ready to implement but life is getting in the way.
> Nevertheless, a proof of concept is this:
>
>
> From 95794324cd4a637c4735447b672a1de91416cc4a Mon Sep 17
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply, I hoped to have a merge request
ready to implement but life is getting in the way.
Nevertheless, a proof of concept is this:
From 95794324cd4a637c4735447b672a1de91416cc4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jean Abou Samra
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 17:00:20 +0100
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 23:21 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development:
> Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 23:05 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > > Plus, your plan of keeping code for Guile 1.8 doesn't work / make sense
> > > without keeping GUB working. That is
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 23:05 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 19/02/2022 à 22:43, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:34 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > > Le 19/02/2022 à 21:00, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > > > I'm firmly convinced that the order must be
> >
Le 19/02/2022 à 22:43, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:34 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
Le 19/02/2022 à 21:00, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
I'm firmly convinced that the order must be
1. only test with Guile 2.2 in CI
2. make configure only look for Guile 2.2 by default
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:34 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 19/02/2022 à 21:00, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > I'm firmly convinced that the order must be
> > 1. only test with Guile 2.2 in CI
> > 2. make configure only look for Guile 2.2 by default
> > 3. do a release with Guile 2.2
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:23 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> writes:
>
> > Our answers are racing here, I'd suggest we keep that discussion to the
> > sub-thread of your original reply. Just for completeness and future
> > reference:
Le 19/02/2022 à 21:00, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 19:58 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
Le 19/02/2022 à 17:57, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
Guile 2.2.
After the release of 2.23.6, there were
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
writes:
> Our answers are racing here, I'd suggest we keep that discussion to the
> sub-thread of your original reply. Just for completeness and future
> reference: Setting GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1 is an explicit choice by users.
> You don't get
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:08 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
>>
>> > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > That is not as much a speed issue as an stability issue. The byte
>> > > compilation caches are
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:08 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
>
> > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > That is not as much a speed issue as an stability issue. The byte
> > > compilation caches are not robust across updates and
Jonas Hahnfeld writes:
> Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> That is not as much a speed issue as an stability issue. The byte
>> compilation caches are not robust across updates and downgrades since
>> they are based on file names.
>
> ... where the path
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:04 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> writes:
>
> > > Having byte-compiled files in the
> > > user's cache removes the ability to completely uninstall and negates
> > > the ease of moving the installation
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
> > Guile 2.2.
> >
> > After the release of 2.23.6, there were
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
writes:
>> Having byte-compiled files in the
>> user's cache removes the ability to completely uninstall and negates
>> the ease of moving the installation around with static binaries.
>
> Byte-compiled files from LilyPond never end up in
Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 19:58 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> Le 19/02/2022 à 17:57, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
> > Guile 2.2.
> >
> > After the release of 2.23.6, there were reports of major problems
Le 19/02/2022 à 19:58, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
There
is also a big issue with the way Guile determines if a bytecode
file is up-to-date. I could be wrong, but as far as I can see,
it takes any bytecode that has a newer date than the source, which
means that if we produce bytecode via
Le 19/02/2022 à 17:57, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
Guile 2.2.
After the release of 2.23.6, there were reports of major problems on
Windows, namely that the binaries were broken when extracted with the
Windows Explorer
Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
> Guile 2.2.
>
> After the release of 2.23.6, there were reports of major problems on
> Windows, namely that the binaries were broken when extracted
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss what are considered blocker issues for a switch to
Guile 2.2.
After the release of 2.23.6, there were reports of major problems on
Windows, namely that the binaries were broken when extracted with the
Windows Explorer (#6281) and that file names with special
71 matches
Mail list logo
