On 8 June 2015 at 10:48, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > >> On 6/7/15 9:45 AM, "Federico Bruni" <f...@inventati.org> wrote: >> >>>Thanks Oliver >>> >>>The correct email address is bug-lilypond@gnu.org >>>The normal procedure is that the Bug Squad will open a new issue in the >>>tracker if the errors are confirmed. >>>I cannot comment on the changes proposed, sine I don't know anything >>>about bagpipe music. I hope others will. >> >> I cannot comment on the changes either, but it seems like we have an >> expert opinion that the changes are correct. > > The main question we need to address then is whether there is reasonable > suspicion that people relied on the previous behavior, possibly by > figuring out the names of commands to use by looking at the charts. > > Are any users of bagpipe.ly known/reachable with whom we could discuss > how to proceed for making this change? Are convert-ly rules advisable? > Or is it more likely that existing music would actually get closer to > the writer's actual musical intent?
I am the author of bagpipe.ly. Good to see someone looking over this all these years. I choose the "irritating" names a long time ago and used them without caring much if they represented correct terminology. I will have a thorough look at the suggested changes as soon as I can, but they do look reasonable. I am not sure about what user base we may have for bagpipe.ly, but I have had contact with some users at least. Extensive renaming of existing movements can of course easily be implemented by a convert-ly rule, but updating the user's memory of what to type to get the desired result is perhaps not quite as simple. -- Sven Axelsson ++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++ >++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<. +++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond