----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca>
To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>
Cc: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>; "Carl Sorensen"
<c_soren...@byu.edu>; "Lily-Devel List" <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Various updates to reduce make doc output (issue 5727055)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:59:53AM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
Please see http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2407.
Great!
Can I please now quieten this warning using the explicit command
line switch --quiet?
huh? I'm sorry, but I think this points to a different lesson.
If we explicitly throw away warnings with --quiet, then we'll miss
seeing problems in lilypond. I don't think we need to see it on
the command-line, but there should be *some* record of this
warning *somewhere* (i.e. in a log file).
- Graham
Aargh. I am _not_ throwing away warnings. I am hiding a _single_ warning
in midi2ly. This only warns the user that the output may not be optimal. I
am going to update the --help to make this clear. If anyone runs midi2ly
with --quiet and then doesn't like the output, they can check the help, run
it without --quiet or fix the bug I've raised. Honestly, there's no point
in redirecting a warning that no-one wants to see to a logfile that no-one
will read.
Check out the other logfiles for the other warnings if you don't believe me.
Is anyone fixing http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2146
which has a far more detrimental effect?
Honestly, it is nit-picking like this that drives me crackers. Let's just
go with hiding this during builds. Please?
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
