Re: Issue 1716 in lilypond: No convert-ly rule for the fix for issue 1655

[lilypond]

Updates:
        Status: Started
        Owner: address@hidden

Comment #9 on issue 1716 by address@hidden: No convert-ly rule for  
the fix for issue 1655
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1716

I totally agree with "No backport of 1655" as that was a syntax change.

I'm not sure I agree about no convert-ly rule in 2.15, which was the  
genesis of this question.

Neil argues against a convert-ly rule; James and Reinhold (and I think I)  
argue in favor of a NOT_SMART convert-ly rule for any deleted syntax, even  
if it *is* an internal property.

I believe that adding a convert-ly rule would prevent somebody later coming  
back and adding a Critical Regression.

Since I haven't heard anybody say we *shouldn't* add a NOT_SMART rule, just  
that we *don't need to* add a NOT_SMART rule, I will go ahead and add a  
NOT_SMART rule unless I hear well-reasoned complaints.

But I won't backport to 2.14.