On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Janek Warcho wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > > > > On 3/9/12 12:57 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > > >>On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:51:20PM +0000, Graham Percival wrote: > >>> If somebody can make 10.4-x86 work, then it would be great to > >>> officially support it again in the future. However, I think > >>> that's too far away; delaying 2.16.0 for that doesn't make sense. > >> > >>oops, I should delay all emails by 5 minutes or something. > >> > >>In case anybody thinks I'm being unfair to osx users: one of the > >>strongest reasons to move forward with 2.16 right now is so that > >>we can get a stable lilypond in the hands of 10.7 users. Or, to > >>put it in my terms, "to make those annoying 'why doesn't lilypond > >>run on 10.7?' people shut up". > >> > >>This decision is a balance between 10.7 users vs. 10.4-x86 users; > >>the sanity of main developers vs. other stuff, etc. I think that > >>moving forward with 2.16 is the right thing to do. > > > > I totally agree. > > > > There is no reason to add a separate download for lilypad on 10.4-x86. > > > > Users of 10.4-x86 can upgrade software, or they can use any other text > > editor to do lilypond work. The only thing not working is the GUI app, > > which isn't really necessary. > > +1
Agreed. -- Colin Hall _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel