Re: Outstanding patches
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 04:09 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote: 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. That would be nice. It may be worth explaining to your employer (if you haven't already) that by doing patches the proper way, they will be able to use features that are developed in mainline lilypond in addition to the ones you develop. 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 This was applied (a7d058d67feb06da25298c3df77e0740f8069d62) Pure-height of stems, sits wanting a test case: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/18449/focus=18450 This was applied too (b86b58161aa6a9ecee5ebca1ad4e7ca66e0027f8) Not that regression tests aren't important, but I guess whoever pushed the fix decided that it was more important to get the bug fixes in there. Cheers, Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
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
Outstanding patches
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 02:02 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote: BTW, have you fixes for the vertical alignment been pushed yet? You mean, the vertical space estimation? There were several bugs screwing height-estimation. Some of those fixes are pushed, and some are still sitting on Rietveld. Which ones specifically were you interested in? Or do you mean the text / embedded score alignment? The fix to that, requires as a prerequisite the multi-line embedded score fix which is sitting on Rietveld. 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. Cheers, Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
