Hi, I will not reply to most of your message; I suspect that your experience comes from a corporate environment where people are paid full time to work on software. In my opinion, many of the points are simply not relevant in a relatively small community of volunteers, for example the release frequency (which is already quite high for an open source project I would say). Same for testing, in particular all possible combinations of dependencies.
The one thing I want to get straight are the comments about Guile 3.0 because that claim keeps coming up: Am Donnerstag, dem 24.02.2022 um 09:13 +0100 schrieb Luca Fascione: > Last thought: as I am currently learning Scheme and Guile, and I > noticed 3.0.x has been out for a couple years now and seems to be > benchmarking with speeds comparable to the 1.8.x line (according to > their release notes). It's important to differentiate between their benchmarks and the real- world impact on a complex project like LilyPond. There have been preliminary tests and they indicate that it's still a lot slower than Guile 1.8 without bytecode. Whether it will be faster than Guile 2.2 for our use-cases afterwards, I don't know. > Given the switch to 2.2 hasn't happened yet, and as I am reading > through these emails, it has been a long process, wouldn't moving to > 3.0 instead be a better way to capitalize on the effort and push out > the next round of this level of pain to a later date? The question is, would this make things better? Jumping across even more versions certainly doesn't promise to be an easier transition. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
