[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: adding snippets manually
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: adding snippets manually |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:57:14 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:26:57AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 4/18/09 6:03 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:39:07PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> > Not only that, but with a minimum of effort. IMO, people adding
> > new features should only be required to write one .ly file (for
> > input/regression/ ); they shouldn't need to do any other manual
> > tweaking to get a snippet in input/lsr/.
>
> This is an interesting thought, but I think it would require significant
> reworking of the existing regtests.
>
> One of the issues with regtests is that when a bug is found, a regtest is
> added to demonstrate the bug, and then when it's fixed, the test works
> properly. But it's not clear to me that such a bug-identifying regtest
> belongs in the manual.
No, no -- when a programmer writes a regtest for a new feature,
the minimal "documentation" work is that he copies it or runs a
python script or something to put it in the snippets. If he wants
to write more docs for it, such as a non-regtest-like snippet for
input/new/, or actual NR stuff, that's fine... but IMO those
shouldn't be necessary parts of new feature code.
> Let's consider another option -- there's a snippet somebody develops in the
> LSR that's a neat way to do something. So we want to add it to the manual.
> Should it also be added to the regression tests? My first thought is no,
Sweet mao no.
> but my second thought says that if it's in the manual, we ought to make sure
> it continues to work. So I don't know where I come down on it.
We make sure it compiles by compiling the docs. We absolutely do
not have the resources (in this case, CPU-wise as well as
people-wise) to check every single piece of .ly code that's in the
git tree for every single release.
> > Fixing this could also tie into my long-desired separation of docs
> > from code -- we kill input/ entirely. Snippets go in docs/input,
> > and regtests go in regression/ or regtests/ or something like
> > that. Oh, I also hate the capital letter in "Documentation", so
> > I'm wanting "docs/" instead. And the current input/examples/ dies
> > completely and is replaced by lsr-derived stuff. And maybe see if
> > we can set up lsr on Valentin's new server, if that new server is
> > more reliable than the current one.
> >
> I don't have input/examples in my git tree. Does it still exist?
Umm. It's actually worse than I remembered; the "examples" are in
input/ directly. They don't even have their own subdirectory!
> When we get lsr set up on another server, perhaps we can get multiple copies
> set up to handle different LilyPond versions?
Sweet mao no.
> I think that the major
> limitation on lsr right now (other than the fact that it's frequently down)
> is that it only supports one version of LilyPond, and currently, it's an old
> version (2.10.12). We'd like to have a 2.10 version, a 2.12 version, and
> maybe even a 2.13 version.
No. No, we wouldn't like that. It would be even more of a
support nightmare.
LSR should be the latest stable, which means 2.12.something.
Valentin is supposed to be coordinating this with Sebastiano, but
he's off spending time on other things right now.
*scowl*
Remember that the stable versions of lilypond mean something now,
and they'll be coming out more often. It shouldn't be a big deal
to update LSR once every 6-8 months. I'll admit that we might
want special tags for snippets which requires 2.x, rather than any
y < x.
> > And a pony. I really want a pony.
>
> Don't think you can have one in Singapore. I think it would be a risk for
> messing up the streets!
No problem; I can add a bucket attached to the rear.
That's actually what the horse-drawn carriages in Victoria (my old
university city) did. I always wondered what the smell was like
for the tourists, sitting directly behind such a bucket... but
hey, maybe that just added to the quaint "fake old English"
setting. :)
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: Improve implementation of dashed slurs, (continued)
adding snippets manually, Graham Percival, 2009/04/17
- Re: adding snippets manually, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/04/17
- Re: adding snippets manually, Graham Percival, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: adding snippets manually, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually, Graham Percival, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually, Graham Percival, 2009/04/18
- Re: adding snippets manually, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/04/18
Re: adding snippets manually, Valentin Villenave, 2009/04/18
Re: adding snippets manually, John Mandereau, 2009/04/20
Re: adding snippets manually, John Mandereau, 2009/04/21
Re: adding snippets manually, John Mandereau, 2009/04/24
Re: adding snippets manually, Graham Percival, 2009/04/24