Jan Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com> writes: > 2011/8/6 James Lowe <james.l...@datacore.com>: > >> Users and new contributors will interpret priority as importance, >> though, and will naturally want their favorites to be higher on the >> list. That's why I suggested putting issues where we don't know >> exactly what Lilypond should do, as "Postponed". Obviously we can't >> program the behavior until we know what we want it to be, and that >> motivates users (who might know their area of notation better than we >> do) to think through what they want. > > Hmm. Interesting point of view.
Not always helpful either. A lover of artwork won't be able to tell an artist how to improve his work. He still can be more, or less satisfied with it. You can tell critics "do it yourself then", and they won't be able to. But it is not their job. I have had in projects of my own long histories of explaining to people why something "obvious" they want to is a logical impossibility, or how the blame lies with bugs and deficiencies of components outside of my control. You can get religious about it, and it becomes annoying at the twentieth repetition from somebody who does not know about the nineteen times before that. And at some point of time, you do some imprudent workaround, or some total magic, or whatever, and people stop bothering you. The compromises between the wishes of people and the technical feasible things and those you want to do are a moving target. And the responsibility for making technical and logical impossibilities disappear, to match the program better to expectations and requirements, is only something the experienced programmer can do. Sometimes the results please the user more than the programmer. It is hard to generalize this into policies, since a policy would not change its mind if enough people bother it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
