Re: Introducing the LIlypond Snippet Repository

[Erik Sandberg]

On Sunday 30 January 2005 17.29, Sebastiano Vigna wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 16:38 +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > This is so incredibly way way cool! 

I totally agree on this.

> > I fully support this initiative, 
> > and will gladly work to make running lily on your server as flawless
> > as possible.
>
> I hoped so!
>
> >   * Perhaps you can work together with Graham to copy snippets from
> >     the manual. If the LSR is a success, we can drop the more esoteric
> >     examples from the manual.
>
> That was my idea, too. I'm a bit exhasted by the last three-days full-
> time on the project, but examples from the manual are a perfect source.
>
> >   * I suspect that you could import the input/{test,regression}/
> >     directory wholesale.
>
> Well, I thought about that, but many regressions show that lily does the
> right thing when writing stuff normally, so they're not a good candidate
> for explaining how to do strange staff. Unless, however, we want to have
> a "regression" flag and we have a separate search engine for
> regressions, mainly for developer. I'd be glad to do that if you think
> it's useful.

It would be great if there could be some cooperation between my bug CVS 
project and your project.

Currently, I read the mailing lists, and as soon as a bug report drops in, I 
test & isolate it, write a line of texidoc, and upload the .ly along with 
a .png to the bug cvs.

There are both good and bad sides of this:
+ The system is very practical for me; I have direct access to all files; I 
can modify them arbitrarily and cvs keeps track of everything for me.
+ Since I rule the database as a dictator, I can assure a high quality among 
the bug reports; I try to keep them minimal & nice.
- It's not natural for the general public to browse the buglist; you can go to 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.5/bugs/out/ but this page is more intended for 
developers. I believe this is a very minor problem.
- Bugs have to go through the mailing list. Bad for 2 reasons:
  - It relies too much on me not doing mistakes: Bug reports could sometimes
    get lost, e.g. if I miss or forget about a bug report on the list.
  - It might feel better for a bug hunter to report the bug
    directly to a bugzilla-style database; this might reduce the current
    cathedral-like feeling.

I would very much welcome a system like the one Han-Wen suggested; where you 
can submit a bug report snippet with tag "Not verified". For example, I could 
review it, isolate it, add it to the cvs database, and then tag it "added to 
CVS", and later 'closed'.

If you'd like to include the bug database in the snippet database, I think it 
would be quite easy to create a script to feed the CVS bug list back to the 
snippet DB.

(in the future it might be a good idea to completely move from CVS to LSR for 
bug reports, but this can wait)

Erik