Re: branching

[Mike Solomon]

On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/10/13 5:42 AM, "Mike Solomon" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> As 2.18 draws near, I¹d like to work with everyone to establish a system
>> of branching for LilyPond development.  After several rounds of
>> discussing things with David K, this emerged as the best way to avoid
>> arguments about integrating work into the development branch that have
>> led several contributors, including myself, to significantly reduce time
>> on the project. 
> 
> This seems like a nightmare to me.  It is good for somebody who wants to
> get their features out the the user base.  But this just makes the
> decisions about what to include in the development branch more emotionally
> charged.

It seems like everyone agrees, so this is definitely not the way to go.

> I'll present a hypothetical exchange between two caricatures:
> the creative developer who is only concerned about adding a really neat
> feature, and doesn't care how it affects the code base; and the consistent
> developer who is only concerned about the consistency of the code base,
> and would rather have no new features added than have a new feature added
> that requires contortions in the syntax, the parser/lexer, or the code
> base.

This is a fantastic hypothetical exchange.

> 
> 
>> [1]  I feel that this reduction in commit diversity is the biggest
>> obstacle to LilyPond¹s future evolution, which is why I¹m calling on
>> everyone to make a concerted effort to think this through.
> 
> 
> I have made a concerted effort to think this through. I believe that a
> reduction in commit diversity is a serious problem.  I think the community
> was greatly weakened when Mike felt that it was no longer worth putting up
> with the hassles to make his contributions.
> 
> However, I think that a fractured development branch (up to 6 different
> branches) would be an even bigger obstacle to future evolution.  I think
> it would lead to a balkanization of LilyPond.
> 
> Of course, given my participation in development over the last couple of
> years, my input may not be worth much.

After seeing people’s responses, I agree.  It is obvious from everyone’s 
reflections (especially yours, which is very thorough) that if branches become 
an institutionalized feature of development, they will hurt LilyPond.  I 
rescind my idea.

The only hassle for me, which I did not run up against when I started with the 
project, is David’s way of communicating.  I’m not claiming this is all on him, 
but I’m also pretty sure that I’m not the only one who has peaced out because 
of this.  I am looking for ways for this to no longer be an issue.  I was 
hoping that branches would go a way towards making this happen for myself and 
hopefully other developers, but it’s clear that this is not a good idea.

In my two day jobs, director of the ensemble 101 and developer for the Guido 
project, I work with two (very different) teams of people on projects that 
require creativity, consistency, and tons of communication.  Neither of them 
has any of this friction resulting from communication issues, both of them 
enjoy a diversity in major contributions, and both are evolving rapidly and 
stably in several interesting ways at the same time.  I truly hope that 
LilyPond can be like that.

Thank you for taking the time to think this over and for your response.

Cheers,
MS