Re: changes in chord names formatting (1503, 1572) (issue 4981052)

[Adam Spiers]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:52:32PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> Hey, give yourselves some credit - at least you're not using CVS;
>> *that's* what I would label as dark ages :-)  git is still relatively
>> new for many many people.  Also, being short on experience doesn't
>> make it impossible, it just means it will take a bit longer to get
>> there.
>
> Yes and no.  Suppose you're a windows users.  Suppose you notice a
> few typos in the lilypond documentation.  Suppose you want to be
> helpful and actually fix it instead of just filing a bug report to
> bring out attention to the typos.
>
> The *shortest / easiest* method we have for those people is:
> - install virtualbox
> - download lilydev
> - use a simplified graphical lily-git.tcl to get our source
> - edit files in gedit
> - compile the docs inside the virtual machine
> - commit and create patch using the simplified graphical lily-git.tcl
> - send patch by email
>
> When most people look at those steps -- which again, is the
> easiest method we have, after continually looking and revamping
> this process over the past three years -- they either give up
> part-way, or just never start.  If the task appears to be too
> hard, it's not a question of time+effort; most people (sensibly)
> just give up.

Understood, but I can't really imagine how you could make the initial
set up of a build environment for this size of codebase any less of a
hurdle.  lilydev is a great thing, and even with using it (I didn't),
setting up a build environment was a total walk in the park compared
to something like digikam.

>> Sure, it can be improved, but I don't think it's
>> worth beating ourselves up about it either.
>
> I'm not beating myself up -- but when I see people spending
> literally dozens of hours on tasks that could be automated with
> 1-3 hours of programming, I hardly think that optimism is the
> appropriate response.  :(

Given that we have this great opportunity to make things way better
without too much effort, it seems an entirely appropriate response to
me!  Surely you wouldn't prefer the automation to be very difficult,
or even worse, impossible?

>> I don't know Patchy, but I agree it certainly sounds like a lot of
>> this work could be automated.
>>
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration
>
> Incidently, the latest round of panic is because I switched to
> ubuntu oneiric 11.10 instead of staying on 10.04 LTS.  I wanted
> the gcc 4.6 toolchain for my Vivi work, but that's caused a huge
> ripple of disruption in lilypond.

How come?  Lilypond compiles fine with gcc 4.6.1 on Fedora 15.