2012/1/2 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: >> >> > This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on >> > lilypond-devel. A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst >> > those emails, but we simply cannot afford to revisit every policy >> > decision every six months because somebody didn't notice or wasn't >> > interested in the previous discussion. >> >> The labels are not all that interesting to me. If we don't have >> developers or users interested in working seriously on or with certain >> proprietary platforms, then there is no point in calling those platforms >> supported and stopping the release process for those platforms that >> _can_ be considered supported.
I'm seriously interested in using Lily on Windows. Unfortunately issues 1933 and 1948 are quite beyond me; i don't even understand what is written in 1933. I could try attacking 1948, however, this sounds like 10+ hours of set-up work and 20+ emails *before* actual fixing can happen (for my experience level). I'd prefer to use this time to do something i'm good at: fixing small things (i'm restoring my lilydev after three-months pause) and writing well-documented and cross-linked issues for our tracker (recently i wrote issues 2141-2145, it was really a lot of work to gather all examples and separate the whole "accidental problem" into separate, yet meaningful, issues). If you think that i really should attack these critical issues at all costs, let me know and i'll consider it. > We could certainly consider dropping support for OSX or windows. > That would eliminate 80% (or more!) of our user base, including > everybody who works on our documentation, plus certain extremely > valuable developer like Carl... but I suppose that, logically > speaking, we could consider it. > > I am against that idea. +1 I'm also against making a Linux-only release. While technically possible, it would introduce a high level of mess. >> > an unintentional regression, or something which stops a good >> > contributor from working on lilypond), >> >> That's urgent. But it is not release-relevant since good contributors >> don't work on released versions but on the development version. I also >> see no point in delaying a stable release because of details that are >> not actually worse than at the previous release. Well, i think that this was Graham's desperate try to get us more involved in maintainability issues. I support that and i'll look at issue 2100 as fast as possible, cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
