why you don't contribute to Mutopia
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? I can see these big problems: 1. Money Recently an user said that he doesn't host his lilypond scores (CC licensed) on Mutopia, because he can't get any money from it; while he can get some money from the advertisements on his website. I don't like advertisements and I'd like to keep them away from Mutopia project. But I believe that other strategies are possible. For example, donations via micropayments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment#Recent_micropayment_systems Or crowdfunding for big projects, etc. 2. Licenses Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, CC By, CC By-Sa: http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least CC By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. 3. Requisites for the lilypond files Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond file, but they cannot check the quality of the file. I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to contribute this way. 4. Web interface Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email. Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only seven contributors: https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way. A modern web interface may attract more contributions? X. Other problems/ideas? Thanks for the feedback. Federico ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 19:01 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:
> For example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the
> lilypond file, but they cannot check the quality of the file. I'd
> suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list
> and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to
> contribute this way.
Better would be to write a command for Denemo that adds the
mutopia-required headers. A more serious problem would be Denemo users
who have no understanding of the LilyPond output, they will not be using
the \repeat { . } format as it requires placing the first part of
the construct at a place where nothing may appear in the typeset file
(e.g. at the beginning).
So they will generate LilyPond files with
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta "1"))
and such like, which make reading the LilyPond output harder. I don't
think there would be a practical way round that.
Richard
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Federico Bruni writes: > I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss > list and see if someone can clean the input. According to Gmane, the last non-SPAM message on the mutopia-discuss list was in April. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 19:01 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote: > I'd like to have some feedback from you. Which change in the Mutopia > interface/decisions would make you start contributing or contributing > more? > > I can see these big problems: My biggest problem is that I only have the energy to go to one website. I am like the shopper who does not go shopping around. I monitor the recent scores page of IMSLP for things of interest, and re-typeset those that need it. I think a really serious improvement could be made by systematically posting the PDFs of mutopia scores on IMSLP with links to the source files back on Mutopia (where the source files can be checked for malicious code - we don't want people downloading and executing a .ly file only to realize that someone thought it was funny to put rm *.* inside it, it would be *such* bad publicity. I am not trying to give ideas to rival music typesetters here...). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Federico Bruni 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) At the current point of time, Mutopia is a large bitrot graveyard. If one makes it easy to crowdsource and/or automate the _maintenance_ of files and make the various versions available, it might become a lot more active. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
David Kastrup writes: > 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) > > At the current point of time, Mutopia is a large bitrot graveyard. If > one makes it easy to crowdsource and/or automate the _maintenance_ of > files and make the various versions available, it might become a lot > more active. Oh, and perhaps let people associate update/entry work with bitcoin and Paypal addresses so that downloaders can easily transfer a suggested fee, and that one can, say, point to an IMSLP source of public domain photocopies and say "having them in LilyPond 2.16 would be worth $x to me". Or "having this 2.12 source in 2.18 and using the new ??? syntax would be worth $x to me", with the ability of multiple people to pitch in. The success of LilyPond-based projects like SCORA http://www.flanderstoday.eu/innovation/leuven-orchestra-uses-tablet-follow-music-scores> ultimately depends on a reasonable availability of workers who are willing to prepare LilyPond scores for a fee. Without that, the projects don't scale. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Federico Bruni gmail.com> writes: > 4. Web interface > Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email. > Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only seven contributors: > > https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors The github is not mentioned on the mutopiaproject contributions page. Pointing to that page might reassure contributors that the project is alive and well. I contribute via email. When I am learning a public-domain piece of music I look for a source on MutopiaProject. Published music often has impossible page-breaks, and revising a LilyPond source is more rewarding than cutting up the paper score. Updating old scores is usually a matter of convert-ly followed by removal of typically very many \overrides that are no longer needed. I wish there was a side-by-side diff for this one: https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/ commit/81a588f5d16a3bcb4110bd1e8197dbdc5a08137e Just say 'no' to Scheme. I put just one scheme function, copied from the manual, into a mutopiaproject contribution, and that caused problems almost immediately. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-11/msg00201.html ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Hi, The webpage it self should look more modern. IMSLP is a good example but even small changes could help a lot. > 2. Licenses > Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, > CC By, CC By-Sa: > http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html > > I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least > CC By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. BY-SA-NC is not approved as a free cultural license: http://creativecommons.org/freeworks These arguments should be considered. But it is a valid choice and it could also be good to have that option. And the mutopia footer with its varying font sizes is ugly! > 4. Web interface > Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email. > Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only > seven contributors: > https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors I didn't know that this git repo. > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@ > emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way. > The last time (1 year ago) I sent an email to the suggested address, I did not get any reply. So I didn’t try again and thought Mutopia is just dead. I have some scores, that I could upload, I could also use them to test any new upload feature. > A modern web interface may attract more contributions? For several years now, I have sketches and ideas how that could work and look and I always wanted to learn enough web techniques to make a proposal which can be tested. But so far I still don’t have the capabilities to do it. The last discussion I started about Mutopia ended without changing the website. If there is a chance that things really end up on the website, I would search for the notes I have taken back then and contribute to the discussion (but unfortunately not to realize it, see above). Updating the current version would also improve it. I could take care of updating some scores. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Le 01/01/2014 19:01, Federico Bruni a écrit : 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? I can see these big problems: [snip...] 2. Licenses Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, CC By, CC By-Sa: http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least CC By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. And what about Free Art License which is recommended by the Free Software Foundation. IMHO it's really a Free license. Seems like IMSLP has the same problem with this license! It's impossible to tell you what kind of problems are relevant, it's totally esoteric from IMSLP. I don't understand the arguments against this choice, if they exists. Thanks for the feedback. Federico ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Federico, thanks for writing this. There is a mixture of hope and despair in the responses, as well as an understanding of the complexities in an all-volunteer site. The content in Mutopia is substantial enough to be a great resource and managing this content via volunteers will always be a challenge. There have been a number of updates in the past year -- utf-encoding conversions, project status updates, data consistency repairs -- and these have been good starting points. Much of that effort took place without engaging mutopia-discuss and that was probably a mistake. As long as the content is good (correct, aesthetically pleasing, readable, and using a reasonably current version of LilyPond) I believe the site holds value. It is not as good as it could be. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Federico Bruni wrote: [snip] > 3. Requisites for the lilypond files > Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For > example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond > file, but they cannot check the quality of the file. > I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list > and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to > contribute this way. > As long as the Denemo-based transcriber understands that they may not be able to "round-trip" their submission. > 4. Web interface > Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email. > Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only > seven contributors: > https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors > > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving > contributions@emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions > this way. > > A modern web interface may attract more contributions? > Probably, but I've come to believe that updating the content is more important. -glen (just an active Mutopia-Project volunteer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Federico Bruni 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
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Glen Larsen writes: >> 3. Requisites for the lilypond files >> Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For >> example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond >> file, but they cannot check the quality of the file. >> I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list >> and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to >> contribute this way. >> > > As long as the Denemo-based transcriber understands that they may not > be able to "round-trip" their submission. Perhaps one should offer a way to offer Denemo files as well. The GPL, a key document for the spirit of Free Software, states: 1. Source Code. The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source form of a work. and requires works to be distributed including source code. For a Denemo score, the preferred form of modification is the Denemo file: offering the export to LilyPond may be nice for LilyPond users, but it's no longer the corresponding source. It's already a derivative like a MIDI file. >> A modern web interface may attract more contributions? >> > > Probably, but I've come to believe that updating the content is more > important. If you are counting on surf-by fixings (like Wikipedia does), a web interface is pretty much a necessity. It does not need to be "modern" (which is often an alias for "flashy, clunky, annoying"), but it must not make doing a few fast fixes cumbersome. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
> I'd like to have some feedback from you. Which change in the Mutopia > interface/decisions would make you start contributing or contributing more? I wanted to contribute with the 4th symphony of Schumann which was ready to be submitted. I had spent some time to adjust the page layout for A4 paper format and was not ready to spend more time to target the letter paper format. I still would like to put the symphony but do not find the extra time to do that and also, now the lilypond format is quite old (2.12), I would need to update to 2.18. So, I would say that when time misses, just a minor hurdle can stop the process. Cheers, Frédéric ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Am 03.01.2014 07:56, schrieb Frédéric Bron: >> I'd like to have some feedback from you. Which change in the Mutopia >> interface/decisions would make you start contributing or contributing more? > > I wanted to contribute with the 4th symphony of Schumann which was > ready to be submitted. I had spent some time to adjust the page layout > for A4 paper format and was not ready to spend more time to target the > letter paper format. The requirement to not specify the paper format and have both A4 and letter supported is nice in theory. And it is good that LP has good defaults for both. In practice, for almost every score, the layout settings depend on the paper format to make it really looking good. Therefore, IMHO, both A4 and letter contributions could be accepted by Mutopia without the other. If I (as a user) really want a score which is available as US letter only, I can do the tweaks myself to fit nicely on my A4 paper (and vice versa) and I am better off if it exists in the other format than starting from scratch. Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
2014/1/3 Frédéric Bron > I wanted to contribute with the 4th symphony of Schumann which was > ready to be submitted. I had spent some time to adjust the page layout > for A4 paper format and was not ready to spend more time to target the > letter paper format. I still would like to put the symphony but do not > find the extra time to do that and also, now the lilypond format is > quite old (2.12), I would need to update to 2.18. > > So, I would say that when time misses, just a minor hurdle can stop the > process. > Please submit it and you'll add a layout for US letter if/when you'll have time. It doesn't have to be (immediately) perfect :-) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
2014/1/2 Phil Hézaine > 2. Licenses >> Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, >> CC >> By, CC By-Sa: >> http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html >> >> I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least CC >> By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. >> > > And what about Free Art License which is recommended by the Free Software > Foundation. IMHO it's really a Free license. I don't know if it adds much to what the licenses above provide. Simplification is a good principle... ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
2014/1/2 Noeck > > 4. Web interface > > Currently the contributions are handled via github or by email. > > Github is a good way but it's for geeks only. There are currently only > > seven contributors: > > https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/graphs/contributors > > I didn't know that this git repo. > > I've just asked some website updates on mutopia-discuss. Let's see what happens... > > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@ > > emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way. > > > > The last time (1 year ago) I sent an email to the suggested address, I > did not get any reply. So I didn’t try again and thought Mutopia is just > dead. I have some scores, that I could upload, I could also use them to > test any new upload feature. > > Too bad. Have you checked if your score has been added to Mutopia? > > A modern web interface may attract more contributions? > > For several years now, I have sketches and ideas how that could work and > look and I always wanted to learn enough web techniques to make a > proposal which can be tested. But so far I still don’t have the > capabilities to do it. > > Are you talking about the appearance? I think that what may really change mutopia website requires some programming skill and knowledge of a web framework (django, for example). > The last discussion I started about Mutopia ended without changing the > website. If there is a chance that things really end up on the website, > I would search for the notes I have taken back then and contribute to > the discussion (but unfortunately not to realize it, see above). > which discussion? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
>> 2. Licenses >> Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, >> CC By, CC By-Sa: >> http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html >> >> I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least >> CC By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. > > BY-SA-NC is not approved as a free cultural license: > http://creativecommons.org/freeworks > These arguments should be considered. But it is a valid choice and it > could also be good to have that option. > > And the mutopia footer with its varying font sizes is ugly! Yet another license issue: To my understanding the CC licenses (BY-...) require to mention the author somehow. And the license should be linked or be somehow easy to find. The current choice of licenses is lacking both. In addition the newest CC version is 4.0. I would propose something like: © Year Author, License: Creative Commons … 4.0 Where the license points to the cc website (using \with-url) Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
> > A modern web interface may attract more contributions? > > For several years now, I have sketches and ideas how that could work and > look and I always wanted to learn enough web techniques to make a > proposal which can be tested. But so far I still don’t have the > capabilities to do it. > > > Are you talking about the appearance? > I think that what may really change mutopia website requires some > programming skill and knowledge of a web framework (django, for example). Yes, that’s what I meant. > The last discussion I started about Mutopia ended without changing the > website. If there is a chance that things really end up on the website, > I would search for the notes I have taken back then and contribute to > the discussion (but unfortunately not to realize it, see above). > > > which discussion? I cannot find it which makes me wondering if this discussion has taken place at all. This is all I found: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-02/msg00570.html But you know it (you replied). Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
Le 04/01/2014 13:27, Federico Bruni a écrit : 2014/1/2 Phil Hézaine 2. Licenses Currently Mutopia accepts only transcriptions licensed as public domain, CC By, CC By-Sa: http://www.mutopiaproject.org/legal.html I don't know what led to this decision, but I can imagine that at least CC By-Sa-Nc would be preferred by some. And what about Free Art License which is recommended by the Free Software Foundation. IMHO it's really a Free license. I don't know if it adds much to what the licenses above provide. Simplification is a good principle... "Art Libre a fait le choix du libre; Creative Commons a fait celui du libre choix." The structure of Art Libre is Copyleft. One big difference is the acknowledgement of the Berne's Convention. The Free Art License is effective in all the countries which signed up these agreement. So far it is not the case for CC License (I don't know for CC 4.0). There are also discussions about a compatibility between CC and FAL (or LAL = Licence Art Libre). http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Compatibility Potential compatible licenses FAL In CC's view, FAL 1.3 is a strong candidate for two-way compatibility with BY-SA 4.0. Discussions are currently underway that we hope will allow remixing between two similarly-spirited but currently separate islands of content. We are working through details of what adjustments may need to be made in order to accomplish this goal. We will be vetting those fully with our communities between now and d3 (draft3). It is possible that some tweaks may needed to be made to our licenses to make that happen, affecting current drafting. In terms of operationalizing such a statement on the CC side either through a reference in the license itself or inclusion on our existing (empty) webpage [link], this is an open question that will be addressed once more progress is made. For now, d2 contains the same compatibility language as 3.0 and maintains the definition of Creative Commons Compatible License and structure. Cheers. Phil. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
> > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving > contributions@ > > emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions > this way. > > > > The last time (1 year ago) I sent an email to the suggested address, I > did not get any reply. So I didn’t try again and thought Mutopia is just > dead. I have some scores, that I could upload, I could also use them to > test any new upload feature. > > > Too bad. > Have you checked if your score has been added to Mutopia? Hi Federico, hi all, no, the score has not been added. Did you get any reply from the Mutopia mail address? I wrote to contributi...@mutopiaproject.org again on Jan 4th and didn’t get any answer so far. I also made a pull request to the github repo but there was no reaction, neighter. https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/pull/241 I continue to wait, but if anyone has contact to anyone behind those interfaces, I would be interested if some answer can be expected within days or weeks or more like months. Best, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
On 10/01/14 04:57, Noeck wrote: > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@ > emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way. > The last time (1 year ago) I sent an email to the suggested address, I did not get any reply. So I didn’t try again and thought Mutopia is just dead. I have some scores, that I could upload, I could also use them to test any new upload feature. Too bad. Have you checked if your score has been added to Mutopia? Hi Federico, hi all, no, the score has not been added. Did you get any reply from the Mutopia mail address? I wrote to contributi...@mutopiaproject.org again on Jan 4th and didn’t get any answer so far. I also made a pull request to the github repo but there was no reaction, neighter. https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/pull/241 I continue to wait, but if anyone has contact to anyone behind those interfaces, I would be interested if some answer can be expected within days or weeks or more like months. I've submitted corrections to Mutopia two or three times for errors in existing scores on Mutopia, but never received any acknowledgement, and the corrections never made it to the scores on the web site. So I no longer bother. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
From: Nick Payne On 10/01/14 04:57, Noeck wrote: > The email may be a good alternative, but who is receiving contributions@ > emails? Just Chris? I have no idea if people send contributions this way. > The last time (1 year ago) I sent an email to the suggested address, I did not get any reply. So I didn’t try again and thought Mutopia is just dead. I have some scores, that I could upload, I could also use them to test any new upload feature. Too bad. Have you checked if your score has been added to Mutopia? Hi Federico, hi all, no, the score has not been added. Did you get any reply from the Mutopia mail address? I wrote to contributi...@mutopiaproject.org again on Jan 4th and didn’t get any answer so far. I also made a pull request to the github repo but there was no reaction, neighter. https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/pull/241 I continue to wait, but if anyone has contact to anyone behind those interfaces, I would be interested if some answer can be expected within days or weeks or more like months. I've submitted corrections to Mutopia two or three times for errors in existing scores on Mutopia, but never received any acknowledgement, and the corrections never made it to the scores on the web site. So I no longer bother. They don't seem completely dead...their home page shows the lastest additions (two so far this year), and Chris Sawer is responding in their mailing list. Phil. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
2014/1/9 Noeck > > Too bad. > > Have you checked if your score has been added to Mutopia? > > Hi Federico, hi all, > > no, the score has not been added. > > Did you get any reply from the Mutopia mail address? > I don't know what you mean with "Mutopia mail address", but I've received a reply from Chris, mantainer of Mutopia, on mutopia-discuss: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.mutopia.discuss He accepted my suggestions and he said that he will update the website. > I wrote to contributi...@mutopiaproject.org again on Jan 4th and didn’t > get any answer so far. I also made a pull request to the github repo but > there was no reaction, neighter. > https://github.com/chrissawer/The-Mutopia-Project/pull/241 > > I also have two pending pull requests (quite easy to review). As you use github,I suggest using pull requests so your contributions are public. I don't know how long it will take to get those pull requests accepted (some were submitted several months ago...). It's evident that the review system of mutopia need a serious change and possibly some contributors who know well Mutopia (like Glen) should have write access to the repository, IMO. If Mutopia doesn't open the doors to the contributions, it will die. I continue to wait, but if anyone has contact to anyone behind those > interfaces, I would be interested if some answer can be expected within > days or weeks or more like months. The right place to discuss about it is mutopia-discuss: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/mutopia-discuss ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia
2014/1/9 Nick Payne > I've submitted corrections to Mutopia two or three times for errors in > existing scores on Mutopia, but never received any acknowledgement, and the > corrections never made it to the scores on the web site. So I no longer > bother. I can understand your frustration. You may try sending your corrections to mutopia-discuss: perhaps someone will make a pull request on your behalf. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
