Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]

[Gilles Sadowski]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
> ><address@hidden>
> >>What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option?  It's not clear from 
> >>the
> >>2.15 usage manual.
> >
> >I believe it would be a compilable file.
> 
> Useful to know, thank you!
> 
> ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on
> the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units.

Such "units" are also bound to be more maintainable in the long term.
Putting the burden on lilypond (the software) would rather encourage
sloppy "LilyPond" projects (the score source).

> I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically
> identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in
> terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores.

How many scores would be impossible to manually design into "reasonably
large" independent units?
Is it really worth the developers' time to try and automate this? 


Best regards,
Gilles