<stk <at> alcor.concordia.ca> writes: > I wonder what the typical note-entry-time/layout-tweak-time ratio is > amongst LilyPond users.
I'm probably not average (who is?), but I guess I spend about 40% of the time spent on a score on initial note entry, 30% on layout tweaking, 20% on proofreading and 10% on other stuff. But that's just a wild guess; I haven't timed much of it. Of course, I spend another bunch of time on improving my template and include files, checking or posting to the mailing lists, narrowing down and reporting bugs that I've stumbled upon, playing around with guile to make LilyPond produce e.g. covers and once even improving functionality. To return to the subject: I think .ly is a good format for archival purposes, combined with the PDF. You can probably find even quite old versions of Lilypond -- and of an old enough OS environment if you need that -- many years ahead, but if you really need the exact output you got from a version you used, use the PDF. When I re-use a lilypond file, it's usually either because I want to correct a typo or ten, or because I want to take advantage of the improved typesetting in a newer version. Or both. convert-ly does most of the conversion work, and most of what it doesn't convert is either straightforward to retype in a newer version or redundant because of improvements in the newer version. Also, .ly files work brilliantly with revision control systems; I use CVS on all my typesetting work, and while I could do that with an XML-based or a binary format, a text format like .ly lets me view changes etc much more easily. (Plus, it takes up significantly less disk space.) On another note, it looks to me like the base .ly format itself has stabilized a lot recently, to the extent that I don't expect a 3.0 version under the current version numbering regime /ever/. But that's just my impression. B-) Cheers, -- Arvid _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user