On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
>>>
>>> If we have branches with personal interests, it must become more
>>> feasible for the respective authors with personal interests to provide
>>> binaries if they consider that a good idea. Any solution that will only
>>> work via the "Phil, do more" route is not going to scale.
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Kastrup
>>
>>
>> I think it would potentially be feasible to have a page with a variety
>> of builds of single binary types. This could potentially be managed a
>> la patchy, but the question is: if we had a set of, say Linux x86
>> builds to try out, would people bother?
>>
>> It might make more sense to think about improved ways of creating
>> stable releases during a continuing development cycle.
>
> Well, that was supposed to be related to that. Now Mike has chosen to
> blast ahead with a solution of his before I or someone else made a
> formal exposition of the basic problem.
I don’t think asking users a question is blasting ahead with a solution. It is
a question that will help me better understand how users use unstable versions
LilyPond, which in turn will help me understand the problem.
Making formal expositions of basic problems is one way to identify a problem,
but it is not the only way. In a lot of my work, I find that entertaining
solutions without a clear understanding of a problem is the best way to
understand what a problem is.
With respect to the subject of the e-mail, I’m looking forward to more
responses like that of Carl Peterson (thank you Carl).
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
