Am 20.07.2014 11:10, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi folks,
as you can see, i'm falling behind with lilypond stuff, but i wanted
to let you know that i've skimmed through this discussion and it LGTM.
The only comment i have is: try to make things as simple as possible
(but not simpler, of course) - i
Hi folks,
as you can see, i'm falling behind with lilypond stuff, but i wanted
to let you know that i've skimmed through this discussion and it LGTM.
The only comment i have is: try to make things as simple as possible
(but not simpler, of course) - i wouldn't like openlilylib getting a
"java-smel
Am 07.07.2014 16:48, schrieb Paul Morris:
Urs Liska wrote
>Hm, I think I_must not_ start with such a script right now, since I
>know that this - although being not too complex - will eat up too much
>of my time and concentration.
>
>But your message triggered a little bit of thought, and I came
shed-lowercase-scheme as for filenames).
>> - reconsider the metadata structure
>>(which fields are mandatory, which optional, default values?)
>> - move all files in one go
>>(that is: one commit for each snippet, as the files are not only
>> moved but also r
ppets. One by one and using pull request.
>(I think this should be done _with_ review and not be left to
>the authors' discretion)
Sounds fine to me.
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164121.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Am 07.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
Am 07.07.2014 11:46, schrieb Urs Liska:
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
accord
Am 07.07.2014 11:46, schrieb Urs Liska:
>> I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
>> right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
>> with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
>> according to the path they are stored in.
>
Am 07.07.2014 11:37, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
Hi Urs and all,
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
according to the path they are
Hi Urs and all,
I followed the discussion only roughly, but I think it is a step in the
right direction. I'd like to bring up the scheme-modules, I came up
with. They need a fixed folder-structure and need to be updated
according to the path they are stored in.
Should we have a dedicated folder fo
Am 07.07.2014 10:37, schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 07.07.2014 09:55, schrieb Urs Liska:
Maybe we can have a compromise. A script parsing the content of the tags
field from all files shouldn't be hard to write. So we could:
- agree upon an initial set of categories
- agree upon a naming convention for ta
Am 07.07.2014 09:55, schrieb Urs Liska:
Maybe we can have a compromise. A script parsing the content of the tags
field from all files shouldn't be hard to write. So we could:
- agree upon an initial set of categories
- agree upon a naming convention for tags
(e.g. the same dashed-lowercase-sch
d tag the snippets. One by one and using pull request.
(I think this should be done _with_ review and not be left to
the authors' discretion)
Urs
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164086.ht
of the files (which is
how their authors were tagging them).
(I guess this might mean moving the files first and then working on the
tags?)
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164086.html
Sent from the User
ppets they're interested in.
>
>Starting by tagging the existing snippets sounds fine to me.
But not tagging directly but collecting suggestions first. Then decide about a
set of tags and apply them during the move.
Urs
>
>-Paul
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164079.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
ike custom-music-fonts could be shortened to music-fonts.
I had partially done that already, but only on the Wiki, not in the
README. I've now updated both (this duplication isn't intended to be
persistent...).
Urs
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1
l
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p164033.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Am 05.07.2014 10:31, schrieb Urs Liska:
Thanks.
I think we will have to reconsider our metadata section and then do the
transfer in that "reorganization" branch. I strongly suggest to
excusively do that using pull requests, even among the members with push
access.
One more thing I would suggest
Am 05.07.2014 05:30, schrieb Paul Morris:
Uns Liska wrote
I can see the point and I'm ready to accept that approach. There is one
issue, however, that I'd like to discuss before making any decision.
\include "file-name.ily"
opens the door wide for name conflicts. The more the names are s
).
Just an idea, not sure if the extra directory is worth it or not.
The rest of what you wrote all sounds fine to me.
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163999.html
Sent from the User mailing list archi
Am 04.07.2014 17:14, schrieb Paul Morris:
Uns Liska wrote
Am 03.07.2014 19:50, schrieb Paul Morris:
Hi Urs, This is looking like an improvement to me. Here's a thought.
If
the emphasis is on include-ability, what about just having all the
include
files at the same level in the "Library" direc
2014-07-04 17:14 GMT+02:00 Paul Morris :
> One nice thing about decoupling the actual location of the files (their
> include path) from the categories/tags/navigation structure, is that you
> can
> change the latter as needed as the library changes and matures, without
> breaking compatibility wit
from the categories/tags/navigation structure, is that you can
change the latter as needed as the library changes and matures, without
breaking compatibility with existing files that are already using the
library.
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in
2014-07-03 17:51 GMT+02:00 Noeck :
> I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
> definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
>
Me too, speaking file names are much better
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilyp
2014-07-04 12:23 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska :
>- I don't see yet what would go into »specific instruments/repertoire«
>>
>
> For example shortcuts for staff changes in piano music.
> Snippets for specific bending techniques for guitar.
> Lute tablature.
This way the bending techniques for guitar wo
Am 03.07.2014 17:51, schrieb Noeck:
Hi,
I like your ideas on the wiki.
- I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
However, it means that the content of the library doubles (one folder
and one ily).
I am n
Sounds interesting, but I don't thing the time is ready for that. There
has been discussion of providing a structure similar to the "TEXMF" tree
in LaTeX distributions. This would be a place where "library" additions
or "packages" could be stored to and made available in the official
LilyPond d
y case, I think having fewer and broader categories is generally
better.
Thanks for the feedback
Urs
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163950.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
> Our repository has now lived for some time, and I think it is a good thing
> to have and maintain. The recent renaming was partially intended to stress
> its nature as an _includable_ library (as opposed to the official LSR). But
> to make that wo
manually,
but I suppose it could also be automated at some point.)
In any case, I think having fewer and broader categories is generally
better.
Cheers,
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/openlilylib-Discuss-restructuring-tp163922p163950.html
Se
Hi,
I like your ideas on the wiki.
- I'd like to second especially the renaming/reodering of the
definitions file. It looks better without definition(s).ily at the end.
However, it means that the content of the library doubles (one folder
and one ily).
I am not sure, if it is a good idea, but the
Hi to all interested or involved in the openlilylib (a.k.a openlilylib
snippets) repository.
Our repository has now lived for some time, and I think it is a good
thing to have and maintain. The recent renaming was partially intended
to stress its nature as an _includable_ library (as opposed t
32 matches
Mail list logo
