Hi. On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:59:48PM +1000, Cameron and Trudy Horsburgh wrote: > I've been wondering lately how other people organise their workflow, the > tools used, and how they actually go through the typesetting process. > Given the number of different platforms supported, I imagine this would > vary widely.
I have been, in the past, mostly a die-hard vim user with lilypond, where my setup was to have an instance of xdvi open, a gvim window, and a terminal. I'd write the lilypond files (usually keeping separate pieces in separate directories, with separate files for different parts) in vim, and have a couple of aliases in the shell for producing a new DVI or MIDI (and then playing the MIDI). I found the ability to quickly record and replay keyboard macros in vim to be great for making some kinds of widespread but infrequent changes to my sources. I also tended to find that just DVI generation and viewing was a lot faster than PDF or PS. Lately, though, I've started to use emacs again (took a long break during a period of time when it was too resource hungry for the machines I had around typically), and I've found lilypond-mode to be pretty nifty. I haven't really gotten the hang of all its features, though. Also, I've been sufficiently lazy that even though the last Lilypond version I upgraded to (2.1.0-2 in debian/unstable) generates a PDF by default, I haven't bothered to figure out how to make it just produce a DVI file. As for version control, I had kept some scores under CVS in the past, but I was pretty negligent about committing regularly. I started keeping some of my scores under Subversion somewhat recently so I could work on some parts collaboratively with another composer, and I've been very pleased with it. One nice thing is that it makes dealing with renaming and deleting versioned files a lot easier than CVS, which was always a problem for me as the physical source layout of my scores often changes in its early stages. Also, with CVS, I used to tag the repository every time I made a major printout to give to other people or similar, although now with SVN I can generally just scribble down the revision number. As for my workflow itself, it's approximately: - make sketches on paper; - copy a minimal template for each conceptually distinct sketch, enter into files, do a run of lilypond for each and check that the results are approximately correct; - commit new files into svn repo; - repeat a process of writing, editing, merging, and committing, until the files have approximately settled down to one per instrument-group per movement; - make a nice printout of the complete score, spend a while mulling over it both for inevitable countless musical tweaks and for any places where Lilypond tweaking/trickery is going to be necessary; - after the majority of the previous changes have been made, then (and only then) do I worry about the beauty and correctness of the individual part versions. I can't vouch for whether this scales up to large works or not, though. I'd love to hear more about how other people work with lilypond, too. Cheers. -- Julian Squires _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
