Am 22.04.2015 um 22:58 schrieb Thomas Morley:
The main objective of openLilyLib (old and new) is providing a platform for
>extending LilyPond without having to integrate everything in the core. This
>is a) because not every extension should bloat the core and b) even when
>something would fit well it is often extremely hard to get new functionality
>past the doorkeepers ...
I disagree.
I don't think it's a problem to get new functionality into LilyPond,
_if_ it's coded properly.
Sometimes people are scared by a maybe too rough tone, though.
Speaking only for me.
That never bothered me. I'm only interested in the best possible code.
Ofcourse this code should work with_all_ of LilyPonds features and
not only with the usecase I had in mind.
If some of my ideas (and patches) were rejected because of not best
elaborated code, I try to do it better with the next patchset or I
have to accept that I don't have the knowledge (or the time to get
that knowledge) and stop working on it.
How to do it different?
Lower our standards?
I'd say no!
It *is* a problem, and not only about code quality. More than once I
abandoned a patch before the quality of the code was even considered but
because of fruitless discussions about use cases, when for example using
LilyPond to copy from existing sheet music is labelled a "private
use-case of a single developer".
So actually I'm not too motivated providing patches for LilyPond when I
can also implement what I need in openLilyLib. I think this is still
better for LilyPond than if I' had completely quit.
Actually I'm quite convinced that this situation has a notable impact on
the overall development activiyt.
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
