Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 26.01.2016 um 10:21 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: >> >> Personally I don't think "integrating ScholarLY" with LilyPond is the >> right course: it is a rather special-purpose case. I think the question >> we should rather solve is how to modify LilyPond and its tools and >> infrastructure such that it becomes easy to fetch, drop in, and maintain >> things like ScholarLy when developed externally. >> >> Basically CTAN for LilyPond. I mean, the acronym CLAN is actually >> nice.
[...] > Actually what you are writing is very much what I am > thinking. ScholarLY (and all the other conceivable libraries) are > indeed better suited for external development and maintenance. [...] > So my question could be rephrased: Would it be acceptable to suggest a > GSoC project if such an external library is *not* going to be included > in LilyPond directly? With regard to the project I'm convinced that > this would work out in the context/frame of a GSoC project. I think so. Now part of the GSoC idea (which has so far not worked very convincingly for us) is to make a student build long-term ties into a project. For this to work, it would be a good idea if the student had an actual long-term interest in scholarly editions rather than just some programming project. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
