Re: Advanced (web) LilyPond usage for multiple aut hors?

[Bertalan Fodor]

Well using commercial source control systems for handling lilypond projects 
seems quite odd. A wiki has many advantages to simple version control, though 
you could write a client that supports preview, multiple editions etc. But that 
would be a lot easier on a wiki platform.  

 ---- Original message ---- 
From: Peter Chubb <address@hidden>
Sent: 19 Jun 2009 14:22 +10:00
To: Bertalan Fodor <address@hidden>
Cc: MonAmiPierrot <address@hidden>,  <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Advanced (web) LilyPond usage for multiple authors?

>>>>> "Bertalan" == Bertalan Fodor <address@hidden> writes:

Bertalan> A wiki would be perfect for this purpose I think. If the
Bertalan> extension for the wiki is smart enough, it can generate
Bertalan> various outputs.

Bertalan> MonAmiPierrot írta:
>> Hello all, just some difficoult (but not stupid, I hope) questions.
>> I talked about LilyPond in a conference on music edition and
>> critical editions.  With my surprise, some musicologists (some of
>> which don't even use Finale!)  asked me if LilyPond could be used
>> in bigger critical editions projects (e.g., an opera) where
>> multiple editors are involved. These editors would be:
>> 
>> 1- the copyst who does the big "physical" job of writing down the
>> code 2- the main critical editor 3- some expert revisor 4- the
>> final editor who cares about layout (and don't forget at point 0- :
>> the orginal author!)

I'd prefer to use a source code control system for this kind of
collaboration.  Because LilyPond is text based, things like Mercurial,
Perforce, etc., work really well to allow collaborative work, and to
track who did what.

--
Dr Peter Chubb                              peter DOT chubb AT nicta.com.au
http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au           ERTOS within National ICT Australia
           Kernel Engineering Group (KEG): Where Systems Brew.