[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: adding to the LSR

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: adding to the LSR
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:23:28 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:24:36PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> On 4/28/09 4:42 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > After running the script on the directory with all the snippets in it, I
> > run this command to find snippets that didn't compile:
> Cool!  I still think that you ought to put it all (including the grep part)
> into a single script and store it in the source tree.  And it ought to be
> added to the CG so that we have it tracked for the next time we release a
> stable version (I assume it will happen quickly, once Graham gets home from
> Singapore -- although maybe going to Scotland doesn't qualify as "home").

Stable version isn't planned for the near future, but releasing
devel versions is high on the priority list.

Yes, Scotland /will/ qualify as "home" -- I'm going to be there
for at least three years, after all! -- but more importantly, I
have three months of gainful unemployment before I leave for the
Old World.  You can count on a lot of stuff happening from June to
Aug.  :)
One month to go... I can count that on one hand!

> > Yes, I was thinking the same thing but I don't know how to change the
> > convert-ly rules.  It was easier for me just to change \octaves to
> > \makeOctaves.
> Any Frog willing to take on this convert-ly rule fix?  You have a file that
> you can use to see if you have fixed the rule.

I'm not certain this is necessary.  OK, it might be good to use
word-matching for "\octave " rather than string matching
"\octave*", but that's no unique to this occurrance.
(no, I don't know the proper regex terms for these)

In general, we cannot guarantee that tweaks or tweak names will
work after convert-ly.

> > Yes, to do it properly we'll need to examine each one more carefully.
> > My idea with this is simply to find out which snippets are broken in
> > 2.12 and get them at least to compile, so that the LSR could be switched
> >   to 2.12 and then the snippets can be checked out more carefully after
> > that.  Is that a good strategy?
> No, it's a *great* strategy.  Get the easy work done quickly, so there's
> nothing us keeping from moving the LSR, then do the careful work at our
> leisure.

Yes and no.  It would be a great strategy, if we had any clue what
the status of LSR was.  Until we have some kind of indication as
to when the change can happen, and how it should happen, I
question whether any of this work is worthwhile.
(and no, don't bother with the obvious suggestion.  Unless you
_enjoy_ waving a red flag in front of me)

Valentin, what's the latest?

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]