[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:31:34 +0200 |
Sorry, forgot to complete the mail adresses.
2012/9/20 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> But we don't have users involved either. And those are actually the
> ones for which such additions are made. Involving them instead in a
> planning stage largely disconnected from actual developments is a poor
> substitute.
[...]
> the target audience are users (a superset of developers,
> hopefully). But we don't have them involved in the feedback.
>
> And I don't think we should wait with getting them involved until my
> devious plan of turning users into programmers almost without noticing
> bears fruit.
>
>> Do you propose that the user base should get more information
>> about development work?
>
> Yes.
>
>> When working on tablature features, I got an *overwhelming*
>> response of other users, a lot of "how about x/can you do y"
>> stuff which more often than not found its way into tablature.scm.
>>
>> In other areas, the response was about nil.
>>
>> So there is no common rule how to get people involved.
>
> Sure. But with our issue tracker, users don't get involved as a rule.
> Even on issues started from a user report.
>
>>> We definitely can make use of a _lot_ more of this kind of user
>>> involvement and exchange of knowledge, interest, and inspiration, but I
>>> don't see that the syntax discussions and decisions detached from the
>>> actual development are facilitating this.
>>
>> Well, I am still not sure about the latter.
>
> Within specific sub-areas like tablature support, this apparently works
> better than when LilyPond as a whole is concerned.
>
> "Let's write a subsystem/package for this" is just much more manageable
> than "let's change LilyPond as a whole".
>
> Obviously, we should strive to change LilyPond as a whole in order to
> make it easier to delegate problems to the subsystem/package level.
> That allows for much more parallelized processing.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
Hi David, Marc,
speaking only for me: I'm terrible sorry that I currently can't give
you the feedback you desire. Since my injury, I wasn't able to
concentrate on any more involved project or to finish any larger one.
Also, I let Marc alone with the bar-line-code, we started to tackle together.
Marc, please accept my apologies.
So I mostly limited my activities to answer questions on the user-list, FWIW.
But perhaps you may accept some summarizing thoughts about involving
users in the development-process. (Most of them already mentioned)
Or better: why it doesn't work, currently.
Thinking of an average user, subscribing the user-list only:
(1)
He's often not informed that sth is planned/discussed/in-work.
(2)
If he's informed and looks at the code on Rietveld, he doesn't know
what to do with it, because very often there's no
example/regtest/snippet _how_ to use the new
syntax/feature/code/whatever.
Ok, Rietveld is not the place to put in such additional, illustrating
examples, etc.
But I think you get my point.
(3)
Thinking of more involved tasks like testing a patch (and managing the
tools needed to do so), I assume this is not a task an average-user is
expected to manage, with the current system.
At least I had some larger problems installing LilyDev (I wasn't able
to install the required fontforge-version, I had to ask for help)
Also, learning how to deal with the new world of git-commands is
time-consuming.
etc etc
So I second Marc:
2012/9/20 Marc Hohl <address@hidden>:
> but in other cases
> you'll need a way to allow users to test patches, and that's more
> difficult,
-Harm
- Re: allowing \f and \F, (continued)
- Re: allowing \f and \F, David Kastrup, 2012/09/15
- Re: allowing \f and \F, Graham Percival, 2012/09/22
- Re: allowing \f and \F, Sue Daniels, 2012/09/24
- Re: allowing \f and \F, Graham Percival, 2012/09/23
- Re: allowing \f and \F, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/24
- Re: allowing \f and \F, David Kastrup, 2012/09/24
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, David Kastrup, 2012/09/20
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/20
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, David Kastrup, 2012/09/20
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/20
- Message not available
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint,
Thomas Morley <=
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/21
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, David Kastrup, 2012/09/21
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/22
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/22
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Graham Percival, 2012/09/23
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Marc Hohl, 2012/09/23
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, Sue Daniels, 2012/09/24
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, David Kastrup, 2012/09/23
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, James, 2012/09/23
- Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint, David Kastrup, 2012/09/23