Re: Trashy Novels
Hi, On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:29:30AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: olafbuddenha...@gmx.net writes: [...] Jane Eyre is firmly planted as one of the two most famous English novels :-) Huh? Obviously Wuthering Heights would be one of those you'd consider more famous (runs in the family), but I don't think Jane Eyre can hold a candle regarding famosity to a number of novels, like Vanity Fair, Oliver Twist, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Pride and Prejudice and so forth and so on. Even Frankenstein would likely ring a bell with more people than Jane Eyre. Well, Pride and Prejudice is obviously the other one among the two most famous :-) As for the others, they are of course all very popular; but actual polls among British readers at least (I could try to digg up the links if you are *really* interested) consistently show these two at the top. For another measure, just check the sheer number of screen adaptations -- you won't find anything close to Jane Eyre I'd wager :-) (Pride and Prejudice has somewhat fewer, but more successful ones; so all in all they come out about even I'd say...) -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools
Hi, On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:55:15AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: KDE uses reviewboard... Until a few years ago, patch reviews were only done for patches by newcomers, and that went over the mailing lists. But now more and more features are reviewed on reviewboard. Well, it doesn't seem to do much good though... While I can't judge this for myself, I have heard from quite a lot of people recently that the quality of KDE has detoriated to a point where it's no longer really usable at all :-( -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Trashy Novels (was: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools)
Hi, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:18:40PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote: Think of the question in marriage ceremonies: if anybody knows of a reason why these two should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace.. Despite what one reads[1] in trashy romance novels, that question is mostly ceremonial -- nobody actually expects an objection. Trashy? Well, YMMV -- but Jane Eyre is firmly planted as one of the two most famous English novels :-) He paused, as the custom is. When is the pause after that sentence ever broken by reply? Not, perhaps, once in a hundred years. And the clergyman, who had not lifted his eyes from his book, and had held his breath but for a moment, was proceeding: his hand was already stretched towards Mr. Rochester, as his lips unclosed to ask, Wilt thou have this woman for thy wedded wife? -- when a distinct and near voice said: -- The marrige cannot go on: I declace the existence of an impediment. -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 13: patch management tools
Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:23:10AM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: I don't know anything about open source projects outside of LilyPond, but could someone branched into other GNU projects perhaps collect this sort of info? Having participated in or followed a number of free software projects (both GNU and other) over the years, I don't know of *any* besides LilyPond that uses a dedicated patch review tool. (Including the very largest ones, such as Linux or GCC.) Reviews are done almost exclusively by email -- and quite frankly, I don't see why anything else would be preferred for the actual review. The only problem is tracking the status of patches *afterwards*... (Most projects also have some kind of issue tracker; and some use these for patch reviews occasionally -- but they are generally unloved, as they usually don't interact well with mailing lists...) The sanest option seems to be http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/ Patchwork is a web-based patch tracking system designed to facilitate the contribution and management of contributions to an open-source project. Patches that have been sent to a mailing list are 'caught' by the system, and appear on a web page. Any comments posted that reference the patch are appended to the patch page too. The project's maintainer can then scan through the list of patches, marking each with a certain state, such as Accepted, Rejected or Under Review. Old patches can be sent to the archive or deleted. This doesn't address general issue tracker integration. that is a much more complex problem: while patches can be discovered automatically, and only need manual status updates, general issue tracking always requires explicit classification. Although some issue trackers (such as debbugs, RT, or nowadays even bugzilla) can be operated through email, this doesn't mean they integrate with mailing lists seamlessly. Obviously nobody has found the silver bullet yet :-) (And certainly not for the lack of trying... This discussion comes up repeatedly in pretty much every project I know.) -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Moving away from make
Hi, On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 01:35:02PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote: I found some info on creating loops in gnu make, but it didn't seem possible to have loops in pure bsd make. Well, why would it need to work with BSD Make? Gmake is available as an optional tool pretty much everywhere -- and as you considered cmake, a dependency an extra build tool is apparently not a problem... -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Moving away from make
Hi, On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 07:01:04PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote: Instead I've made two scripts depend_ly and depen_tex [1] which finds out what depends on what (think gcc -M), and make [2] takes care of the rest. I think that's precisely the right thing to do :-) Would it be good to make lilypond print out a files dependancies like gcc? Sounds like a good idea as well. No need to maintain external parsers, when lilypond itself knows best what the dependencies are... -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Moving away from make
Hi, On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:12:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote: I will admit there is one aspect in which I *am* spoiled, though: I am totally spoiled by python's readable code. I am so accustomed to writing stuff like cmd = compiler + ' -o ' + exe_name + src_files or cmd = %(compiler)s -o %(exe_name)s %(src_files) % locals() that I find stuff like $(CC) -o $@ $ silly. The readability for casual contributors -- which is what most people looking at build system stuff are -- is ridiculously better in python than anything else. It might be true that Python is more readable for newcomers than make (though reading your examples, I'm not at all convinced of that...) -- but how much does that really matter? The reason casual contributors have trouble making build system modifications, is not the syntax (which is really easy to learn IMHO), but the fact that build systems are inherently a very complex matter. (As you observed yourself...) The best syntax imaginable won't do anything to change this. -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Moving away from make
Hi, On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from make. I know it's been used in loads of projects and is much loved, but actually, from a design perspective, it's appalling. I don't understand why so many people think it is... The Make language as it stands does have some quirks, but I like the fundamental concept. But of course that's mostly irrelevant anyways when using a Makefile generator such as Autotools... If I was writing a make system from scratch, I would describe dependencies in data structures that are viewable and editable, and have a separate program that uses those structures to determine which files need making. I'm not sure why you need extra structures for that? For C/C++, gcc can figure out the dependencies as a side effect of compiling the normal source code; and this can be done for most other languages as well. Very few non-trivial programs actually maintain their dependencies by hand nowadays... I've done 5 minutes research and have found SCons. I've not gone into any more depth with that yet. Does it seem worth looking into this, or something else, in more detail? I don't know about SCons, but at least the often-proposed Cmake is *not* a Make replacement. It's a Makefile generator, just like Autotools. Also please consider that the build system is not used only by developers, but also by distribution packagers, and anyone else building the software. Projects using Autotools are still by far the most convenient; anything else means extra effort. -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: developer IRC or skype chat
Hi, On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote: 2011/6/7 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca: Anybody interested in setting up a weekly chat? Either IRC or skype or some other chat protocol. [...] Hmm, no overwhelming interest. Short-term: let's just make a conscious effort to idle on IRC more often. In my experience, it works the other way round: scheduled meetings help create the critical mass necessary to make it worthwhile for people to hang out on IRC... I know of a channel that was pretty active while they had weekly meetings, and pretty much died once they stopped. Of course this only works if you actually have an agenda of things to discuss at the meetings :-) -antrik- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
