Re: Outstanding patches
Hi Joe, Could you send me a list of the unreviewed patches that you have on rietveld? I should have time in the next week or so to review them. This issue is not so much the patches being unreviewed but rather sitting stuck missing an ingredient like a test case. And this is partly a practical and partly a philosophical issue for us here: as I am trying very hard to explain (in the presentation and many posts on the lists), *my* focus is not advancing LilyPond along its main direction (there already is an excellent team doing that), but taking it to other, orthogonal, dimensions -- such as making it useful to a musicologist preparing a major critical edition. In this work, we have our own limitations which make it very difficult to do proper disciplined software development. Right now, when presented with a technical requirement, I have to take the shortest path to satisfy the requirement *for this book only*. I have very limited time to care if the solution breaks all other books. Not that I have a low code standard, but many times I have to consciously go against my own standards. This exercise going against developer values is deliberate. It has to do with being customer-centric vs software-centric. If the solution happens to be close enough to being useful for everybody else (this is what I earlier called 10% extra work to get the patch accepted), I submit the patch for review. But sometimes, the shortest way differs from the proper say by 500%; these are the patches I classify within the future work category. This is going to change. Hopefully, with the success of the work on the first volume of the book, will be able to launch a project supporting proper mainline LilyPond development. Now, on to the actual list. Off the top of my head, there are three. Page-spacer gets confused, sits wanting a test case: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/17443/focus=18865 This issue has a duplicate, Vertical spacing: over-estimation of markups height, recently reported by Nicolas: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18831/focus=18857 Pure-height of stems, sits wanting a test case: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18449/focus=18450 Homogeneous treatment of markup and markup-list things, discussed back in February and again recently: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-02/msg00268.html http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/28717/focus=28813 http://codereview.appspot.com/207105 With this one, the situations is somewhat more complex because I can see the reasons for Nicolas' assessment that the patch makes one markup command behave differently from all other markup commands. I am not yet sure if this is ok or bad. The whole idea of the patch is that a markup command can return either a stencil or a list of stencils, and the code consuming the result, automatically decides on how to deal with what came from the command. If we take this standpoint, then the patch only needs those minor formatting fixes that Carl pointed out. But one could also take Nicolas' standpoint. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Experimental support for woff fonts in svg. (issue1428042)
On 2010/06/14 20:09:41, Neil Puttock wrote: Hi Neil, I just rebased the patch onto latest master and did a fresh build and doc-build make all all-doc and cannot reproduce it, the doc builds without problems. Here's the tail of the build log (not much use, I'm afraid): [/home/neil/lilypond/out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly $ find . -name 'lily-6d3b14b3*' ./Documentation/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly ./Documentation/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.png ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.texi ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.eps ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.txt ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.signature ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.eps ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.pdf ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.tex ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.png ./Documentation/es/out-www/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.count ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.texi ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.eps ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.txt ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.pdf ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.signature ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.eps ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-1.pdf ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.tex ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.png ./out/lybook-db/f2/lily-6d3b14b3-systems.count ./out-www/offline-root/Documentation/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly ./out-www/online-root/Documentation/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly ./out-www/online-root/Documentation/f2/lily-6d3b14b3.png http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/show ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Presentation: Publisher-grade LilyPond in Ottawa
On 06/09/2010 10:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Uh, am I by now in everybody's killfile I do not know why you keep saying these things, but to avoid any misunderstanding I must publicly state that David is in the top half-dozen on *my* list of most respected LilyPond people. On 06/13/2010 09:22 AM, David Kastrup wrote: So if of three examples you give, one is in reference to a posting of mine (and I don't agree with the sentiment of it, but that's a different issue), and two are of postings of mine, it would appear that all Lilypond needs for becoming more developer-friendly would be to get rid of me. David, if what I said made you feel bad, I sincerely apologize. Let me try to clarify what I meant by those quotes: Interestingly, if we mentally take away those postings for a moment, all we then have left is no other help. So, those posts are the only real attempt at an analysis of the problem and possible solutions. So actually, they were the best constructive answer. But that's exactly the problem I am describing: a major critical-edition project asked for a couple of features, offering non-trivial rewards for them, and the best answer was a (very good) technical analysis concluding with an explanation why these features are unworkable. The request, with the bounty offered, did not even make it into the bug-tracker. Neil Puttockn.putt...@gmail.com writes: Your post is absolutely unnecessary http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-u...@gnu.org/msg52334.html That comment wasn't directed at Jiříi; it was part of a reply to David Kastrup. I put that link to Jiri's reply, instead of to the original Nicolas' post, for a reason. The post has created the impression for the end-user (willing to pay for development) that it was directed at him; this is proven by the reply. But if you actually look at the _original_ postings from which those quotes from me were pulled, you'll notice that the quotes have been rather carefully pruned in order to construct something unconstructive that has not been there in the original posting. The message I tried to construct, is this: the user's requests did not result in solutions which would help the publication of the book. The user was even under the impression that he was told that his posts were completely unnecessary. Even though your original postings do contain a rather excellent technical analysis of many sides of the problem. If you think this message is unconstructive and do not agree with the original postings, tell me how. On 06/13/2010 10:55 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: Where are the thousands of Euros bounties for the LaTeX-based solution? I'm not aware of *any* thousands of Euros bounties for anything on LilyPond. This is a serious question, not a rhetorical question, by the way. I have looked at the issues with Bounty tags, and the only one I can find that seems to be relevant to this discussion is support for footnotes and/or endnotes. That issue makes no mention of a LaTeX-based solution. On the mailing list, and when that didn't help, even around a bunch of music-related forums. There were several requests with such bounties. As you just mentioned, none of them even got into the tracker. Boris ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
meta-policy for the CG
We have a new CG chapter for administration: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/administrative-policies In particular, it lays out the responsibilities for the Meisters (Bug, Doc, Translation, and Frog), and gives the completion status of the CG chapters. This basically means whether you should bother asking for opinions+review before making changes in git. Do not change (other than spelling mistakes) without discussion: * Introduction to contributing * Working with source code * Issues Please dump info in an appropriate @section within these manuals, but discuss any large-scale reorganization: * Compiling * Documentation work * Regression tests * Programming work Totally disorganized; do whatever the mao you want: * Website work * LSR work * Release work * Administrative policies Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Presentation: Publisher-grade LilyPond in Ottawa
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Boris Shingarov b...@shingarov.com wrote: On 06/09/2010 10:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Uh, am I by now in everybody's killfile I do not know why you keep saying these things, but to avoid any misunderstanding I must publicly state that David is in the top half-dozen on *my* list of most respected LilyPond people. That may well be the case, but at the time of those replies, David could not possibly be considered to be a lilypond developer. He did not have git access; his accepted patches accounted for less than 1% of our code base, there were rather obvious disagreements between established members and him. You can certainly characterize the development community as overworked, or even as struggling. But I do not think it is fair to characterize us based on David's responses. The request, with the bounty offered, did not even make it into the bug-tracker. I did a quick search for Boris and bounty on bug-lilypond, lilypond-devel, and lilypond-user, and I only found posts from this very thread. I did, however, find issue 737: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=737 although this doesn't give any kind of estimate on the amount of bounty offered. I believe the highest bounty so far was 250 euro, back in the days when Han-Wen was working full-time and Trevor Baca was requesting many new features. We're now starting to see bounties attracting attention again, so perhaps if you give an exact figure, somebody might start working on it. Or at the very least, it will hopefully make it into the tracker. We've had very obvious problems with issues getting lost before they get to the tracker; I have abandoned my work on the new website in order to work on the Bug Squad. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Presentation: Publisher-grade LilyPond in Ottawa
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Boris Shingarov b...@shingarov.com wrote: This is not what we are saying in our presentation and/or paper. What we are saying is: We attempted a publication of a major critical edition through a major publishing house, using software from a volunteer open-source project with limited resources. We first hoped that this software would be immediately (or almost immediately) suitable for critical-edition work. We found issues blocking this work. These issues are orthogonal to the main direction of the LilyPond project. We fixed them, making the book possible. Future work includes making these solutions useful for the wide LilyPond audience, not just for the immediate needs of this particular book. That message is entirely fair. Others have mentioned that this isn't the impression the slides give, so let's drop the subject now. I hope that you've looked at Reinhold's LAU talks from last month; one of them is quite relevant to this topic. Reason two, the cry for help was heard all over the mailing list starting many, many months ago. Anyone with a LaTeX-based solution yet? Anyone even *suggesting* a LaTeX-based solution yet? After a year and non-trivial (thousands of Euros) bounties offered? I really cannot recall seeing any offers of thousands of Euros. If they're still valid offers, please send info to bug-lilypond. Simplest example: a patch fixes a bug (a Blocker for our real-life project). The fix is used in production for some time, and seems to be working fine. Code review on Rietveld, patch looks good to the reviewers. The only problem delaying its push, is the absence of a test case. We now (in the past hour) have expanded documentation about test cases; this might help: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/regression-tests What I am trying to do, is create some sort of professional LilyPond ecosystem, where people would be allowed to spend serious amount of time on LilyPond work, but where problems would actually get fixed. If a publishing project is willing to spend many thousand dollars to fix a certain problem, That has been attempted before... hmm, 2007? Han-Wen tried to work on lilypond full-time, but there just wasn't enough people offering bounties to be able to support his family (with a young child). I mean, think of what an average software developer earns in a month -- can the lilypond user community really come up with that kind of money? In some ways it's a chicken and egg problem -- you need to have highly skilled developer(s) to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to sponsorship requests, but on the other hand, the best way to get highly skilled developers is to have them working on code, and bounties are a good way to motivate some people. * note: they're only good for _some_ people. Most of our programmers already have stable, busy jobs (for example, a professor of mechanical engineering). Chasing a few 50-euro bounties often works out to be less than their real job. OTOH, if there's a consistent stream of many hundred-euro bounties, this could dramatically change things. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Presentation: Publisher-grade LilyPond in Ottawa
Op dinsdag 15-06-2010 om 16:50 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham Percival: I really cannot recall seeing any offers of thousands of Euros. If they're still valid offers, please send info to bug-lilypond. That has been attempted before... hmm, 2007? Han-Wen tried to work on lilypond full-time, but there just wasn't enough people offering bounties OTOH, if there's a consistent stream of many hundred-euro bounties, this could dramatically change things. I am considering to offer commercial support and may be able to do that on a part-time basis. However, working on two bounties has illustrated that bounty work can be quite tricky. It would be very nice for someone doing this for a hobby and getting to know LilyPond, but commercial support requires some level of predictability. Also, if the amount of work is not consistent but takes the form of a few thousand euros once a year, you would be very lucky if I (or whoever else would take this on) would happen to be available within a reasonable time frame to work on those. Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
bounties
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:25:27PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Op dinsdag 15-06-2010 om 16:50 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham Percival: That has been attempted before... hmm, 2007? Han-Wen tried to work on lilypond full-time, but there just wasn't enough people offering bounties I am considering to offer commercial support and may be able to do that on a part-time basis. However, working on two bounties has illustrated that bounty work can be quite tricky. Indeed; there's almost no relationship between the amount of work required and the amount of money being offered. It would be very nice for someone doing this for a hobby and getting to know LilyPond, but commercial support requires some level of predictability. Actually, somebody pointed out (privately) that chasing bounties is less appealing for inexperienced developers: a $100 bounty could very well take you 50 hours to complete (i.e. if it's your first time working on spacing code), making the job $2 / hr. Also, if the amount of work is not consistent but takes the form of a few thousand euros once a year, you would be very lucky if I (or whoever else would take this on) would happen to be available within a reasonable time frame to work on those. Yes. I'm not trying to discourage people from offering bounties -- it's certainly better than nothing! However, there's very good reasons why programmers don't immediately start working on any issue that has a bounty being offered. One idea I've toyed with is seeking a grant to work on lilypond. Various governments and agencies give research grants; I'm pretty certain that we could get a grant to improve medieval chant notation or contemporary non-Western scales or whatnot. However, this would probably require - a bunch of grant applications - collaborating with some musicologists (i.e. a medieval chant expert, or John Cage scholar, or whatever) - overhead of writing reports about deliverables, giving presentations to people, etc. - etc. In the process of doing the specialized notation, the developer might fix a few normal bugs as well. If there was a concerted effort, particularly between the European academics involved with LilyPond, it could be done, and we might even be able to fund a full-time developer for 6 months or even a year. However, I'm not certain the effort would be worth it -- writing grants is a lot of work; we'd probably have to make multiple attempts; dealing with the administration of the grant would be a lot of work; etc etc. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
release 22.13.24 crash
sorry to inform it crashes (also after installing a 2nd time) on windows vista. the message is attached http://old.nabble.com/file/p28896174/2.13.24%2Bcrash%2Bmessage.png the incriminated file can be found under … \LilyPond\usr\libgs.exe.so.8.70 funnily, the log says the pdf has been created and the compilation ended successfully. however no pdf file is created! c:\Data\ly\Testlilypond test1.ly GNU LilyPond 2.13.24 »test1.ly« wird verarbeitet Analysieren... Interpretation der Musik... Vorverarbeitung der grafischen Elemente... Solving 1 page-breaking chunks...[1: 1 pages] Systeme erstellen... Layout nach »test1.ps« ausgeben... Konvertierung nach »./test1.pdf«... success: Compilation successfully completed cheers! Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/release-22.13.24-crash-tp28896856p28896856.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Revised autobeam settings patch -- cleaned up debug comments (issue1667044)
Reviewers: , Message: I've posted a revised patch under a new issue, because I was working with my git branches to get the patch to only include the changed files. I've eliminated the leftover debug code, fixed up the mistakes in ly/bagpipe.ly, and adjusted the description of timeSignatureSettings. I'm sorry about the confusion on the earlier patch. I believe this one is better for review. Thanks, Carl Description: Revised autobeam settings patch -- cleaned up debug comments in code and eliminated the irrelevant changes in Documentation/snippets just due to running makelsr.py Redo autobeam settings to make resetting easier Autobeaming now depends on context properties that can be \set by the user. When the time signature is changed, default autobeam settings for the time signature are read and the context properties are changed to set the autobeaming properties. This change eliminates \overrideBeamSettings and \revertBeamSettings. New functions have been defined to set time signature default properties: \overrideTimeSignatureSettings and \revertTimeSignatureSettings in order to give autobeam settings persistence through time signature changes. A Scheme function make-setting has been defined to make it easier to create a time signature setting. Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/1667044/show Affected files: M Documentation/de/notation/rhythms.itely M Documentation/es/notation/rhythms.itely M Documentation/fr/notation/rhythms.itely M Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely M Documentation/snippets/beam-endings-in-score-context.ly M Documentation/snippets/beam-grouping-in-7-8-time.ly M Documentation/snippets/compound-time-signatures.ly M Documentation/snippets/conducting-signs,-measure-grouping-signs.ly M Documentation/snippets/fretted-headword.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/beam-endings-in-score-context.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/beam-grouping-in-7-8-time.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/compound-time-signatures.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/conducting-signs,-measure-grouping-signs.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/fretted-headword.ly M Documentation/snippets/new/reverting-default-beam-endings.ly M Documentation/snippets/reverting-default-beam-endings.ly M input/regression/les-nereides.ly M lily/auto-beam-engraver.cc M lily/beam-setting-scheme.cc M lily/beaming-pattern.cc M lily/include/beam-settings.hh M lily/measure-grouping-engraver.cc M ly/bagpipe.ly M ly/engraver-init.ly M ly/music-functions-init.ly M python/convertrules.py M scm/auto-beam.scm M scm/define-context-properties.scm M scm/lily-library.scm M scm/lily.scm M scm/music-functions.scm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
