Comment #14 on issue 1752 by percival.music.ca: redesigning G clef in our Feta font
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1752
wait, let me rephrase that: it wouldn't be a Critical regression because it would be a deliberate change.
However, I think it could still be a bad idea. I've been reading background about python, and one of their guiding phrases is "the principle of least astonishment". In other words, when they had a choice of making python do A or B, they took the choice which would surprise future programmers the least. (at least, so they claim -- I think there's a few counter-examples, such as len() vs. length())
Still, I like the general idea. "We should avoid giving our users bad surprises". IMO, changing the way the clef is drawn, without giving users any ability to select the old clef instead, would be a "bad surprise".
Besides, I really think that supporting the old clef would not be a great deal of work -- and that work would be beneficial to all future font work. I mean, if you actually made a separate "Oscypek" font, which was optional, then I would be 100% comfortable pushing patches from you (to that font) completely blindly. No user discussion, no review, etc. You could make whatever changes to that font you wanted. (caveats: I'd need to get agreement from other developers, and your patches would still need to compile. And you might want to survey users anyway. But you would be working from a position of strength (i.e. you would have the final say about what went into Oscypek), instead of trying to reach consensus with everybody for every single change!)
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond