On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Federico Bruni <fedel...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Dear Lilyponders > > > > some recent posts in this list made me think about the weaknesses of > > Mutopia and why people who may contribute to it are not doing so. I'd > > like to have some feedback from you. Which change in the Mutopia > > interface/decisions would make you start contributing or contributing > > more? > > Mutopia scores tend to be useful as PDF only, the equivalent of dead > paper. They usually have been compiled with an ancient version of > LilyPond nobody has available any more. > > As a result, recompilation, transposing, changes of paper format and > other things are hard. > > Mutopia's biggest weakness is not that it is missing new contributions > but rather that the existing contributions become unusable. > > So what's needed is: > a) automated run of convert-ly to all following available stable versions > b) an interface for people to say "PDF for upgraded file looks ok" > c) an interface for people to fix up files that fail after convert-ly or > are unnecessary complex given new LilyPond features. > d) grading/voting mechanisms for scores/contributors > e) obsoleting files when they have been converted and the version is > really outdated (like, beyond Debian Stale from one year ago) >
f) notification to original transcriber on pending update Time to quantify "ancient" (which I know is substantial) The only way to achieve a reliable level of automation is to focus on the very old submissions. It is a good goal with or without automation. -glen
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
