[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:41:25 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:00:30AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Surely an alternative is to have an archive of stable version
> installations?

We have that already:

> 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.

This is definitely a possibility.  Although if that's how we want
the LilyPond project to function, then I think this should be
stated explicitly on the website in a manner similar to

I believe in giving people enough information to make an informed
choice.  Text input is one "element" (some people would say
"disadvantage") that I made sure that we inform users about before
they download lilypond; an explicit lack of forward compatibility
is another "element" that we should be up-front about, if that's
what we decide.

> @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?

Oh, of course I could compile an old version (or just use the GUB
binaries above).  There may be some library problems, but in a
pinch I could grab a debian iso from 5 years ago, slap that into
virtualbox, and run with it.

A better solution would be to treat "updating old lilypond scores"
as a hobby -- schedule 1 hour a day, spend one month, and I'd
probably be done.  Or at least, it would be updated to 2.14.
Hopefully future updates wouldn't take as long; say, something
like 5 hours a year keeping my scores up-to-date?  However, that
thought doesn't fill me with joy and motivation to use lilypond.
I hate doing regular maintenance.  I'd rather spend 100 hours
up-front instead of spending 1 hour a year for the rest of my life
(and no, I don't expect to live for another 100 years; I
acknowledge that this is not a rational choice).

- Graham

reply via email to

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