Re: Moving the Issues DB to Allura

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I'm kind of surprised that you ended up going to sourceforge, whereas
>> github was discarded because it wasn't a Free enough solution.
>
> We didn't.  We went to Allura (the software SourceForge is running on)
> in order to install on a GNU server.  Tests of the issue data base and
> the import did happen on SourceForge for efficiency reasons (we've
> missed getting everything set up in time nevertheless) but there is no
> intent of moving anything but test installations to SourceForge.
>
>> As dak mentions, this plan goes completely against how LilyPond
>> interacts with scheme, and is IMO a bad idea. In fact, I spent a giant
>> amount of energy distangling the C++ code from type hierarchy (this
>> was in the 1.2 or 1.4 version timeframe IIRC), so interfaces can be
>> mixed and matched at runtime.
>
> Well, this particular patch does really nothing obnoxious apart from the
> proposed commit message.

If anything should be changed here, then the patch should add a large
comment about why the grob/item/spanner hierarchy is setup the way it
is, and why the *_interface classes do not take part in the type
hierarchy.


-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen