Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 24/09/13 15:41, David Kastrup wrote:
> What about "Try it" did you not understand?  Windows does not just allow
> you to say
>
>      sudo apt-get build-dep lilypond
>
> Instead you have several dozens of dependencies you have to satisfy by
> hand, and then the fun with registry entries and other stuff starts.

I didn't need to try it -- I already anticipated that it would involve huge 
amounts of hassle setting up the dependencies.  I asked you simply because it 
was important to me to understand the problem as _you_ saw it.

> No doubt about that, but we're not in the situation to fix Windows.

Is the problem Windows, or that many of the GNU dependencies are difficult to 
install on Windows?

> Look, before you have experience _maintaining_ a cross-platform software
> project, stop the pontification.  At my last regular job, we had a
> publishing project with a TeX core and Java control logic and some
> scripting/packaging.  All cross-platform technology, so we decided to
> offer a Windows version because everybody wants Windows and how hard can
> it be.  A few man-years later (as there were several people working on
> it), we had the thing working.  Deployments?  Some.  Eventually replaced
> by virtual machines running GNU/Linux since they were far more robust
> and unproblematic.
>
> LilyPond is doing _amazingly_ well.  At least we deliver working
> packages that run on Windows.  If you think that a development
> environment running under Windows for LilyPond makes any sense, I have
> the strong impression that you have no experience whatsoever what you
> are talking about.

Note that I never said that Lilypond's delivered packages were inadequate.

I don't know what kind of issues you have in practice with debugging and 
diagnosing Windows-related issues.  Given other factors I can imagine that it 
might be less of a problem than the hassle involved in setting up development on 
Windows.

Still, I'm curious -- what is it about making a Windows development environment 
for Lilypond that doesn't make sense?  Is it just the hassle with the 
dependencies, or are there other factors?

> Pretty thinking gets us only so far.

Well, I was responding to a post that said, "We have X, Y and Z set up to let 
users contribute, what's so difficult about that?"

But there _are_ difficulties that result -- some of them quite explicit, some of 
them more conjectural.  My impression here is that you're strongly locked in to 
certain difficulties because of historical choices about the design and 
architecture of Lilypond.  In other cases I think those difficulties can be 
resolved, and fairly simply.

My response to Phil wasn't meant to be cheap pontification, it was meant to be 
simply: "Here are a list of reasons why you shouldn't be complacent about the 
usability of your tools."

> git-cl does nothing that you can't do directly in the web browser, so
> why don't you use the web browser directly?  Saves you complaining about
> git-cl.  Do it for a few weeks of serious work, and you'll be glad
> git-cl saves you most of the typery/clickery.

Your documentation says nothing about web browser-based submission of patches. 
Perhaps if it did, I would not have had the bad reaction I did.

Suffice to say that what's easier for someone doing full-time work on a project, 
and what's easier for an occasional contributor, is not necessarily the same.

I would also add: I have found GitHub pull request submission and review to be 
much, much easier than git-cl.