Am 23.01.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > On 23.01.2017 22:47, Urs Liska wrote: >> So while it's perfectly possible to put OLL projects on the list and to >> apply for them (or others not listed there) in case of doubt projects >> working on LilyPond itself might be the preference of the developer >> community. > […] >> What I would see as a better project (and what I intend to suggest for >> the list) is developing a system of automated testing and documentation >> generation for openLilyLib, both the snippets repo and the other, >> "new-style", packages. This would actually bring openLilyLib a huge step >> forward to be usable on a broader base. > > I think having openlilylib in a state where it’s reliable, easy to use > and gets adopted more generally would be a huge step forward for all > of LilyPond. I’m thinking (as I’m certain you are, too) of something > comparable to the package system of the TeX universe, which offers a > great possibility to provide facilities for very different use cases > without blowing up the core program, while still having them readily > available, documented and comfortable to maintain. > So don’t be too uneasy about bringing openLilyLib up here, I think. >
Thanks for that. I've uploaded a patch at https://codereview.appspot.com/311570043 Urs > Best, Simon > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel -- u...@openlilylib.org https://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel