[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Partial version numbers in master

From: Jean Abou Samra
Subject: Re: Partial version numbers in master
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:05:46 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0

Le 25/03/2022 à 15:28, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :

I don't see one either, but there appear to be scores in the wild that
use them (I saw an example on the user list, which is what triggered
the original post). The question is whether we consider it fine to
start giving an error on them (it's not a fatal error, doesn't prevent
compilation of the score). I would agree that it's not good practice
for development releases. For stable releases though, "works with
2.22.0" is supposed to imply "works with every 2.22.x", so I wonder
if there is a case for accepting it.

FWIW: I'm one of those guilty of using \version 2.22 occasionally (namely when I write source manually and do not rely on Frescobaldi's feature to create the \version statement automatically).

I use it not to mean "works with 2.22" (which doesn't make much sense since there is no LilyPond 2.22) but to mean "uses 2.22 line features and/or syntax".

Of course, this is only really meaningful for stable release series. But development releases are to be used at your own risk anyway.

So I'd prefer if LilyPond continued to accept \version 2.22 as a version declaration (and then complain iff we're in a version below that). But I admit that this version declaration is not really helpful for using convert-ly.

How about accepting 2.XX style version declarations only for XX = 0 (mod 2)?

Thank you for the data point. I went for that approach.


reply via email to

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