Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: carl.d.s...@gmail.com
Comment #9 on issue 1716 by carl.d.s...@gmail.com: No convert-ly rule for
the fix for issue 1655
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1716
I totally agree with "No backport of 1655" as that was a syntax change.
I'm not sure I agree about no convert-ly rule in 2.15, which was the
genesis of this question.
Neil argues against a convert-ly rule; James and Reinhold (and I think I)
argue in favor of a NOT_SMART convert-ly rule for any deleted syntax, even
if it *is* an internal property.
I believe that adding a convert-ly rule would prevent somebody later coming
back and adding a Critical Regression.
Since I haven't heard anybody say we *shouldn't* add a NOT_SMART rule, just
that we *don't need to* add a NOT_SMART rule, I will go ahead and add a
NOT_SMART rule unless I hear well-reasoned complaints.
But I won't backport to 2.14.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
