Re: critical issues

[Janek Warchoł]

2012/1/2 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:23:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > This was the result of between 25 to 40 emails in August 2011 on
>> > lilypond-devel.  A quick scan didn't reveal your name amongst
>> > those emails, but we simply cannot afford to revisit every policy
>> > decision every six months because somebody didn't notice or wasn't
>> > interested in the previous discussion.
>>
>> The labels are not all that interesting to me.  If we don't have
>> developers or users interested in working seriously on or with certain
>> proprietary platforms, then there is no point in calling those platforms
>> supported and stopping the release process for those platforms that
>> _can_ be considered supported.

I'm seriously interested in using Lily on Windows.  Unfortunately
issues 1933 and 1948 are quite beyond me; i don't even understand what
is written in 1933.  I could try attacking 1948, however, this sounds
like 10+ hours of set-up work and 20+ emails *before* actual fixing
can happen (for my experience level).  I'd prefer to use this time to
do something i'm good at: fixing small things (i'm restoring my
lilydev after three-months pause) and writing well-documented and
cross-linked issues for our tracker (recently i wrote issues
2141-2145, it was really a lot of work to gather all examples and
separate the whole "accidental problem" into separate, yet meaningful,
issues).
If you think that i really should attack these critical issues at all
costs, let me know and i'll consider it.

> We could certainly consider dropping support for OSX or windows.
> That would eliminate 80% (or more!) of our user base, including
> everybody who works on our documentation, plus certain extremely
> valuable developer like Carl... but I suppose that, logically
> speaking, we could consider it.
>
> I am against that idea.

+1

I'm also against making a Linux-only release.  While technically
possible, it would introduce a high level of mess.

>> > an unintentional regression, or something which stops a good
>> > contributor from working on lilypond),
>>
>> That's urgent.  But it is not release-relevant since good contributors
>> don't work on released versions but on the development version.  I also
>> see no point in delaying a stable release because of details that are
>> not actually worse than at the previous release.

Well, i think that this was Graham's desperate try to get us more
involved in maintainability issues.  I support that and i'll look at
issue 2100 as fast as possible,

cheers,
Janek