On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:38:53PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reinhold Kainhofer" > <reinh...@kainhofer.com> > >Yes, that would be *extremely* helpful (not only for the lilypond > >documentation, but also to other lilypond-book users). The only > >question is: > >who will implement it? ;-) > > This is the sort of thing I'm looking at, once the discussion about > what is needed is complete.
I want to emphasize this point. We have somebody willing to work on this stuff. But I don't want him to spend 10 hours preparing a patch to do XYZ, only to have somebody say "no, we shouldn't XYZ at all!". Of course reviewers will discover technical flaws; that's expected. But I don't want reviewers to disagree about the general principles underlying this work. If I encouraged him to work on this stuff without some level of certainty that his work would be well received, I would fail horribly as a mentor. My proposed guidelines for our "ideal" build system (at least, "ideal" without a massive rewrite), is here: http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_5.html Leaving aside technical implementation details, are there any problems with those guidelines? If you disagree with a point (and if I have not convinced you that you should accept the proposal), please speak up. If you would like to add a point, please speak up. This policy discussion has been dragging on for almost a month, and while that's happening we have a skilled contributor sitting on his thumbs. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
