Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > IMHO not including a major rewrite of the entire reader into a bug-fix > release should have been the first step. Right now, if we asked for > guile-3.0 during configure time (which we don't), we would have no idea > which one we get. Really, there must be some truth to the idea of > semantic versioning...
Semantic versioning is about the APi — which this should not change. So from semantic versioning a change of the implementation is not a problem. If there are serious performance regression, then I think that this needs to be addressed, though, because then the practical use of the API would be impacted. >> All reasonably workable versions of LilyPond do this. The others are >> more like "proof of concept" installations provided by package >> maintainers that are not by themselves LilyPond users. They are >> unusably slow and resource-intensive and have a tendency towards >> crashing and eating all memory for non-trivial scores. > > I don't think the situation is that bad anymore. I've been trying hard > to fix bugs reported from distributions that attempted switching for > 2.22 (telling them to go back to Guile 1.8), and current master is able > to run full 'make test/check' and 'make doc' when built against Guile > 2.2. Thank you very much! I plan to continue to keep attention on Lilypond within Guile. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
