PATCHES - Countdown to March 1

2022-02-27 Thread Colin Campbell
Another month fading into the past, and here is the current countdown list. The next countdown will be on March 1st. A list of all merge requests can be found here: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests?sort=label_priority Push: No patches in Push at this time. Cou

Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

2022-02-27 Thread Luca Fascione
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:13 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luca Fascione > wrote: > > is it true that if you double the source size you double the compilation > time? > > it should be, but we have rather complicated page breaking code that > is so hairy that nobo

Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

2022-02-27 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:02 PM Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > > The same happens for C++ files, you also have to recompile. But it's > > > true that editing scm files isn't for free anymore. > > > > The Scheme compilation felt much slower, and for C++ ccache takes away > > a lot of the pain of recomp

Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

2022-02-27 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luca Fascione wrote: > In other words, is it approximately true that "for (almost) any real-life > score the total compilation time > is proportional to the number of NoteHeads, past a certain size"? > I'm guessing you need a few pages worth of material to kill aw

Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

2022-02-27 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:31 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > I never said I don't want to fix Guile 2.2 bugs, and you should know > > as I spent lots and lots of time debugging #6218. I also said I > > support moving CI to 2.2, so any MR would pass against 2.2. > > > > I am just asking to not drop

Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

2022-02-27 Thread Luca Fascione
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 10:48 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > [Jonas] > > He, I always thought auto-compilation didn't optimize! 😕 now don't > > tell me Guile also applies optimizations while just reading and > > supposedly interpreting code... > > I don't think it does. At least, you don't usually