On 24/09/13 17:05, David Kastrup wrote:
No, you are not just "asking". You are throwing diagnoses around and
proposing solutions that are known not to work.
I keep asking you questions because I want to correct my ideas and impressions
if they are wrong.
Still, I'm curious -- what is it about making a Windows development
environment for Lilypond that doesn't make sense? Is it just the
hassle with the dependencies, or are there other factors?
You are probably assuming that Windows is the market leader for desktop
operating systems because it the choice of engineers, picking the best
product made by the best engineers to be found.
OK, now I _know_ that your impression of me is false. :-)
I did originally have some further remarks and questions about Windows
development, but to be honest, I don't think they're helpful or relevant at this
point. I never meant to sidetrack the discussion in that way.
But what follows is I think relevant.
My response to Phil wasn't meant to be cheap pontification, it was
meant to be simply: "Here are a list of reasons why you shouldn't be
complacent about the usability of your tools."
It's always fun to suggest eating humble pie to others. But I really
recommend getting some experience _before_ lecturing them.
Forget big-picture pontification -- I never intended to engage in that. What it
comes down to is this.
I've contributed code and documentation to a variety of different free software
projects. Lilypond stands out among them in being _astonishingly_ difficult to
contribute to, and this difficulty is almost entirely down to the choice of
tools and the way in which certain procedures are managed.
In every case, whether it's git-cl, whether it's the way the bug squad duties
are to be carried out, or whether it's how pull requests are managed, it almost
always seems to come down to involving unnecessary mental and manual and
custom-built work where for years there have been standard automated tools that
would handle those problems.
That makes me very, very sad because I love so many aspects of Lilypond and I
want very much to contribute. But -- I'm sorry -- I don't want to tolerate
unnecessary obstacles to contribution. I want the time I spend on contributions
to be spend on writing code or documentation, not on working around finnicky
tool problems.
I'd be much more willing to temporarily put in that effort to work around those
issues, if I felt that at least there was recognition of the usability issues I
(and others) have raised. But every time there is this reaction: "Why don't you
do it, then, since you know so well how it ought to be."
Whatever is meant by those saying it, at the end of the day it comes across as:
"Hey, we don't care about your usability issues, we don't care that it's
difficult and finnicky to contribute to us, we only care about solving that
problem if you solve it for us."
And ultimately, that's very demotivating and makes everything about contribution
feel bad.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel