Philip Rhoades <p...@pricom.com.au> writes: > People, > > After being bitten (unnecessarily) by old code in the LSR and having a > continuing argument with David about how it came about - I have to ask > - > is there any reason why all the snippets in the LSR can't be > automatically updated when a new version is introduced?
We don't have control over the users' computers, so we can't upgrade their LilyPond version ourselves. The current Debian stable is at version 2.14.2: <URL:http://packages.debian.org/source/wheezy/lilypond> > Surely this would not be hard to do? It isn't. That's what convert-ly is available for. > If the Guile syntax is changing so often, what is the point of keeping > old code in the LSR? You mean: LilyPond syntax. The point is supporting all current users of LilyPond that don't have outdated systems. The current Debian stable uses 2.14. > It is fair enough to tell people that they have to convert THEIR OWN > code but the people who run the LSR, repo should be responsible for > keeping that up to date . . The LSR does not differentiate between versions, so it has to provide stuff working for the oldest stable legitimately in use. That's arguably a deficiency. I am sure that your offers to extend the LSR code accordingly will be appreciated by the person running the LSR. > If there is an argument for keeping a snippet in it's original form > because of historical significance or something - an archive could be > kept of it. > > Just my 2c . . That will not buy a lot of code... -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
