[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:00:30 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Francisco Vila" <address@hidden>
To: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

Take this as the result of a quick reading of the summary. My comment
as a non-expert is that probably a good, reliably working convert-ly
is a substitute for syntax stability, because it is precisely what
will make your documents compile on the long term. Your personal,
misfortunate case would not have taken place. And Mutopia would
compile in a higher percentage. I don't know if this is technically
doable or how many hours/man would it take.

So in any case I don't think we should get obsessed with syntax
stability if we can make convert-ly rules work better. Or if lilypond
were able to read old files and convert-ly them on the fly, issuing a
warning and suggesting the user to make changes permanent.

I'd like to ellaborate a bit more, later.
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)

Surely an alternative is to have an archive of stable version installations? We could advise users who require that their work will compile into the future to ensure it will compile on current stable. Then, if they need to recreate it, the just download that version.

@GP - I know this isn't what the question is about, but is there no way of rolling back to a version of Lily which will compile your files?

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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