"m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes: > Hey all, > > I reverted the instrument name patch in staging.
It might be worth trying to figure out the relation between the problems that this patch was addressing and the breakage of functionality that occured as a consequence of it. Maybe the patch goals can be accomplished in a manner not affecting existing code in such a way. Or one can show that the desired behaviors are fundamentally incompatible in which case we have to make a choice ultimately and figure out how we can minimize the impact on users. At any rate, I think that even outside of the stable release, an approach of "break and patchup everywhere" is not doing our users and code base favors. Anything requiring a "patchup everywhere" needs to be closely examined. Sometimes it might be the only reasonable way forward, but then we need a migration strategy for both ourselves as well as our users. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
