[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: retrograding with convert-ly

From: -Eluze
Subject: Re: retrograding with convert-ly
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:33:05 -0700 (PDT)

dak-3 wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:29AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> -d means no update in version header unless changes happen.  That is
>>> also usually what you would want.  Without -d, the version of the last
>>> applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually
>>> causing a change).
>>> In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already
>>> newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the
>>> version header even without -d.
>> If we did that, then people would complain "I'm using 2.16.2 but
>> convert-ly only updates my file to 2.16.0!".
> Which is exactly what is happening when the last rule of convert-ly is
> for 2.16.0 while the current version is 2.16.2.
>> This could be avoided by printing a message to the effect of "no
>> changes to apply; not changing version number in the file".
> Eluze converted for 2.15.41 with convert-ly from 2.15.41 and the file
> already being at 2.15.41, and he complained that the version header was
> set back to 2.15.40.
>> As a general rule, I don't think it matters whether we make -d or not
>> -d the default;
> That was not even the question.
>> what matters most is providing good information to the user in some
>> combination of program output and/or documentation.
> I prefer changing useless behavior over documenting it.


first of all I'm relieved it is only a shallow bug and the functionality of
convert-ly is not touched.

the actual behavior is somewhat confusing, but tbh I only detected this
after using it for several years.

View this message in context: 
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

reply via email to

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