On 2020/04/25 22:05:26, dak wrote: > On 2020/04/25 17:07:17, hahnjo wrote: > > I strongly object to adding more random scripts to the source tree. There are > > already far too many unmaintained in scripts/auxiliar/ with no documentation > at > > all. > > How about approaching this in a different manner then? Adding instructions to > the CG about how to benchmark LilyPond's behavior in a sensible manner? And if > the instructions end up bothersome to follow, back them up with scripts doing > the bulk of the work?
I'd still argue that they will just rot over time. Have a look at https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5665/ and the reasoning I included why all of these features and scripts just didn't work anymore - despite some being documented. https://codereview.appspot.com/545950043/
