Hi
2013/12/10 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org:
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development versions and I’d like to ask users, especially those currently
using the development version, to take the time to respond to a question
regarding the proposal.
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent development
versions and I’d like to ask users, especially those currently using the
development version, to take the time to respond to a question regarding the
proposal.
If lilypond.org were to propose multiple
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development versions and I’d like to ask users, especially those currently
using the development version, to take the time to respond to a
On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development versions and I’d like to ask users, especially those
- Original Message -
From: Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org
To: LilyPond Users lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: survey on multiple development versions
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
It seems to be fixing a problem we don't have. What would be the
benefit?
We have a problem reconciling potentially destabilizing work with the
necessity to put out releases, in particular stable releases. That
definitely _is_ a problem we have.
I
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to provide
binaries if they consider that a good idea. Any solution that will only
work via the Phil, do
On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org
To: LilyPond Users lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: survey on multiple development versions
Hey all,
I
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to provide
binaries if they consider that a good idea. Any
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to provide
binaries if they consider that a good idea. Any solution that will only
work via the
On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with personal
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:00:02 -0500
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com wrote:
This, to me, sounds like a plug-in solution is needed, at least for
things that do not involve changing the C++ code (and maybe even
then).
I would hate the situation when I download a source for a piece of music
Am 10.12.2013 17:10, schrieb Mike Solomon:
On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net mailto:m...@philholmes.net writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org mailto:d...@gnu.org
If we have
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to
provide binaries if they consider that a good
Pavel Roskin pro...@gnu.org writes:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:00:02 -0500
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com wrote:
This, to me, sounds like a plug-in solution is needed, at least for
things that do not involve changing the C++ code (and maybe even
then).
I would hate the situation when I
On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:32 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
feasible for the respective authors with
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
I don’t think asking users a question is blasting ahead with a solution.
It is a question that will help me better understand how users use
unstable versions LilyPond, which in turn will help me understand the
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Simon Bailey si...@bailey.at wrote:
for instance:
- the cool new features in 2.17 were \tuplet, tighter spacing,
dot.notation.of.objects and \markLengthOn, several articulations feature;
- 2.15 didn't have much exciting for me in it -- here i stuck with 2.14
the bleeding edge, what can I say? :) I am a risk-taker! lol
-
composer | sound designer
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/survey-on-multiple-development-versions-tp155496p155522.html
Sent
Am 10.12.2013 18:30, schrieb SoundsFromSound:
For whatever it's worth, I've always used unstable builds from about 2 weeks
after I started using LilyPond. I began with stable, but then quickly hopped
on the unstables and have had zero issues with my scores.
I love the bleeding edge, what can I
version (or
at most two?) instead of five, then this would be a lot simpler and more
feasible from a user's standpoint. But maybe that would not be enough to
achieve what you're trying to accomplish.
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/survey-on-multiple
Working on many parallel versions seems in some ways seductive, the
dream of improving many things all at once, but I agree keeping to a
single release cycle is definitely less prone to creating all sorts of
unintended problems from conflicting development to documentation
degradation. This
I wonder if this is coming across more confusing than it has to be. You're
talking about branching a feature branch from the mainline (probably the
development branch: 2.17.24, 2.17.25, etc) and merging from it (as the
mainline changes), while the feature branch is improved, until the feature
On 12/10/2013 06:41 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org
mailto:m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development versions and I’d like to ask users, especially
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 10.12.2013 18:30, schrieb SoundsFromSound:
For whatever it's worth, I've always used unstable builds from about 2 weeks
after I started using LilyPond. I began with stable, but then quickly hopped
on the unstables and have had zero issues with my
Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org writes:
On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:32 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Refactoring the page building into a stage where its basic operations
can be done from Scheme/LilyPond would be a first big step towards being
able to experiment with different schemes
On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Colin Campbell c...@shaw.ca wrote:
On 12/10/2013 06:41 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
Hey all,
I recently e-mailed the development list about multiple concurrent
development versions and I’d
Am 10.12.2013 19:46, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org writes:
Am 10.12.2013 18:30, schrieb SoundsFromSound:
For whatever it's worth, I've always used unstable builds from about 2 weeks
after I started using LilyPond. I began with stable, but then quickly hopped
on the
28 matches
Mail list logo
