Re: Major version: LilyPond 2.14.0 released!
1. I will not respond to your insults 2. Of course this was about stable releases. 3. It is called "Release early, release often, and listen to your customers" and its the total opposite of what you have said right from the very beginning of this statments appearing in The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Its ALL about the users and using them as Co-Developers because they will report the bugs to you. If you think that you have "normal users" who only should see stable and bugfree releases then you are not doing RERO at all but you are building a cathedral. Nils On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 01:32:09 +0100 Graham Percival wrote: > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:57:07AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > > Am Freitag, 2. April 2010 01:11:29 schrieb Graham Percival: > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 04:15:18PM +0200, Nils Gey wrote: > > > > It seems the real joke is "Release Early, Release Often" in the > > > > same sentence as lilypond. > > > > > > In the past 5 months, we've had an > > > average of one release every 2 weeks. > > > > I suppose what Nils meant was not that we have 2.13.x *unstable* > > *developer* > > releases every fortnight, but rather that we have stable releases about > > every > > two years (of course, not counting the minor releases, which mainly > > backport > > fixes to serious problems)... > > "Release early, release often" is specifically aimed at developers > -- get the code out there, let people play around with it, let > them help find+fix bugs. That phrase as **nothing** to do with > stable releases for normal users. > > If people want a stable release, they can take a look at the 15 > critical issues. Once those are down, we can announce a beta and > find approximately 5 more critical issues. Then we'll have a > second beta, and probably discover 2 more issues. Then we'll have > a third beta, find no more critical issues within two weeks, and > then release 2.14.0. > > But this whole process doesn't get off the ground until the > current crop of release-critical issues are fixed. > > Cheers, > - Graham > ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: %module-public-interface
On 02/04/10 10:37, Ludovic � wrote:
Hi Ian,
Ian Hulin writes:
On 30/03/10 22:52, Ludovic � wrote:
Andy Wingo writes:
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 22:56, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I'm pretty sure that the submodule thing can be changed without any
problem. But it seems that the %module-public-interface is used
explicitly, at least by texmacs and lilypond.
How do they use it?
Linking to the evil empire:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%25module-public-interface&sbtn=Search
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%25module-public-interface+lang%3Ac%2B%2B&sbtn=Search
Lilypond does:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
mod = scm_call_0 (maker);
scm_module_define (mod, ly_symbol2scm ("%module-public-interface"),
mod);
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
Solution: do something like:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
#ifdef HAVE_SCM_SET_MODULE_PUBLIC_INTERFACE_X
scm_set_module_public_interface_x (mod, mod);
#else
scm_module_define (mod, ly_symbol2scm ("%module-public-interface"),
mod);
#endif
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
(We just need to add that function.)
TeXmacs does:
And we could add a ‘public-interface’ slot to ‘module-type’ and have
‘module-public-interface’ and ‘set-module-public-interface!’ refer to
it; for backward compatibility we’d also initialize the
‘%module-public-interface’ binding. How does it sound?
Actually the trick wouldn’t work in cases where the
‘%module-public-interface’ binding is mutated, as with Lilypond.
Given this and the above examples, I’d suggest dropping that binding
completely and sending patches to the Lilypond/TeXmacs people.
What do you think?
If you do add scm_set_module_public_interface_x, could you back-port
it to Guile V1.8.6 and V1.8.7?
We could back-port it to the 1.8 series, but not to the already-released
1.8.7 and 1.8.6. We’d have to make a 1.8.8 release, but I’m not sure
that would really help anyway since that would force Lilypond users to
switch to that version.
Those are the lowest versions of Guile the upcoming stable release of
Lilypond will support.
How about doing #ifdef HAVE_SCM_SET_MODULE_PUBLIC_INTERFACE_X in your
code?
We still have to agree on the change and actually implement it, the
latter being easy. ;-)
I'm sure that would be easy enough, if guile provided
HAVE_SCM_SET_MODULE_PUBLIC_INTERFACE_X in the V2.0
guile-config (or the pkg-config guile-2.0 data which I believe is
replacing it), that looks like it would be the most painless route for
both projects.
When is the new Lilypond release due?
I'm not the ReleaseMeister for Lilypond; you'll get a better picture by
talking to Graham Percival (gra...@percival-music.ca).
But FWIW it looks like we're on our few last development releases before
the stable V2.14 comes out. It's near enough for a spoof release
announcement to have gone out on the mailing list on April 1st which
suckered me!
I reckon plans are for Lilypond to stick with Guile V1.8.7 at least
until the next Lilypond stable version after V2.14, but again, mileage
may vary if you talk to more experienced Lilypond people.
Currently there are only a couple of people in the Pond looking at
Lilypond/Guile V2.0 transition, and there are a few compatibiilty
breakages we've identified.
1. Lilypond configure looks at guile-config --version to get the guile
version - the guile V2.0 guile-config says it's being deprecated in
favour of pkg-config --atleast-version/--exact-version/--max-version.
2. Lilypond has *lots* of guile code which it needs to build the project.
3. There's a restriction introduced in Guile V2.0 whereby dynamic use
of define, define-public and variants will cause the guile compilation
to fail with diagnostics. We have these in our basic Scheme files
(lily.scm and lily-library.scm). These compilation failures currently
stop Lilypond building altogether.
4. We've already seen the %module-public-interface thing in the Lily
C++. There's probably more smelly stuff lurking in the C++ interface,
which won't surface until we start trying to use Guile 2.0 more.
Graham, Vincent, is it worth opening a tracker to capture
forward-compatibility issues with Guile?
Thanks for your feedback so far, Ludo. The other Lily developer who has
done anything with Guile 1.9/V2.0 is Patrick McCarty (pno...@gmail.com).
Cheers,
Ian
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
iPhone users/developers around?
Hi, You may have noticed there's a commercial app for the iPhone that uses LilyPond and Mutopia. Two days after it's release, it apparently was the #4'th top selling music app in the itunes store. Yesterday it moved from the new app to the hot app list, apparently. Is this a music-specific list, or an overall thing. How long is this list, do people look at it? Can we get a good guestimate of the scope of this? How many iPhone users actually buy/ install apps, or music apss. Greetings, Jan. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-03/msg00280.html http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/etude-iphone-app/ http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/17/count-the-beats-learn-to-read-and-play-sheet-music-with-etude-o/ http://smokingapples.com/iphone/app-store-iphone/etude-sheet-music -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: iPhone users/developers around?
On 4/2/10 6:05 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote: >> > Can we get a good guestimate of the scope of > this? How many iPhone users actually buy/ > install apps, or music apss. Virtually every iPhone user buys and installs apps. The app store presents apps that typically cost less than $10.00, and allow specific functionality that you want in your phone. As far as music apps, I don't know. And I can't imagine that people will really use etude on the iphone as a trainer for playing the piano. Perhaps on the iPad, however. In reviewing some online data (google search for iphone app sales figures), it seems that a #1 app may have about 1500 downloads/day, but that they don't stay at that number for very long. HTH, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
new Git stats WAS hold your horses, WAS new Git stats
2010/4/1 Francisco Vila : > 2010/3/29 Jan Nieuwenhuizen : >> Yes, are new stats up? > > > Latest stats are up on http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/ , repo > was cloned today apr01, 21:30 aprox. I've not checked them yet but a > quick viewing using gitk looks good. A new column "authors by month/year" has been added to http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/authors.html#author_of_month -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: %module-public-interface
On 2010-04-02, Ian Hulin wrote: > > 3. There's a restriction introduced in Guile V2.0 whereby dynamic > use of define, define-public and variants will cause the guile > compilation to fail with diagnostics. We have these in our basic > Scheme files (lily.scm and lily-library.scm). These compilation > failures currently stop Lilypond building altogether. This is really just a stricter adherence to the Scheme R5RS. (if ...) can only contain *expressions*, IIUC, and (define ...) is a top-level definition, not an expression. But yes, either LilyPond will need to adapt to these stricter guidelines, or Guile will loosen its policy with respect to (if ...) statements. > 4. We've already seen the %module-public-interface thing in the Lily > C++. There's probably more smelly stuff lurking in the C++ > interface, which won't surface until we start trying to use Guile > 2.0 more. I think almost everything is fixed on the C++ side now. > Graham, Vincent, is it worth opening a tracker to capture > forward-compatibility issues with Guile? We already have one (sort of): http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=963 > Thanks for your feedback so far, Ludo. The other Lily developer who > has done anything with Guile 1.9/V2.0 is Patrick McCarty > (pno...@gmail.com). That's . I don't want any email reaching the wrong mailbox. :-) -Patrick ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: website translation infrastructure
2010/3/30 Graham Percival :
> I believe that the translation infrastructure is now complete. Edit
> scripts/build/create-weblinks-itexi.py to change the translations for
> links to manuals and whatnot.
>
> See examples here:
> http://lilypond.org/website/development.es.html
Done for es/
After building, the "Doc tarball for 2.13.17" string at the bottom is
still untranslated. Do you know why? The code looks OK.
def make_doctarball_links(name, version, lang):
(...)
make_ver_link(macroLang("doctarball"+name, lang),
url, getTrans("Doc tarball for ", lang)+version)
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
web translation oddities
Jan, in commit:
5f5ddf31b44694333e11af175d97cd25c1234af0
you added this:
+translations = {
+'de': {
+'English': 'Deutsch',
+'Other languages: ': 'Andere Sprachen: ',
+},
+'es': {
+'English': 'Español',
+'Other languages: ': 'Otros idiomas: ',
+},
+'fr': {
+'English': 'Français',
as an ignorant North American, I wouldn't dream of telling a
European how their funky languages worked... but I really question
whether "Deutsch" is the correct 'de' translation of "English".
Ditto for es, fr, etc.
I thought the original lang_lookup table was a much more intuitive
way of handling each language's name for themselves ?
Anyway, note that John is working on the gettext stuff, so maybe
we shouldn't screw around with this stuff too much? Or at least,
it might be good to check with him before making more changes?
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: website translation infrastructure
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote: > After building, the "Doc tarball for 2.13.17" string at the bottom is > still untranslated. Do you know why? The code looks OK. That's because it still had @doctarballDevel instead of @doctarballDevel-es I've fixed this, but you might want to have a look at the manual macros in manuals.itexi. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: %module-public-interface
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote: > On 2010-04-02, Ian Hulin wrote: > > > > Graham, Vincent, is it worth opening a tracker to capture ITYM Valentin. > > forward-compatibility issues with Guile? > > We already have one (sort of): > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=963 Not really; that's intended for things like "we need to use fontforge 2010.03.02 or higher!". And it'll be closed in a few weeks. I've added issue 1055: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1055 Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
