|
From: | Phil Holmes |
Subject: | Re: critical issues |
Date: | Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:59:02 -0000 |
To: <address@hidden> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:44 AM Subject: Re: critical issues
"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> To: <address@hidden>There is a _reason_ the remaining OSX and Windows based developers are doing (definitely important) documentation and web site work. They are to a large degree locked out and dependent on support from surplus GNU/Linux-based developer capacities. We are not doing them any favors by killing LilyPond development as a whole out of sympathy with their plight.Not at all. I think you know that myself and James are mainly Windows users. We also run big Ubuntu machines that support the build environment. However, we came to the development from being Windows users. Cut off that supply and I'll probably stop supporting Lily, which I would regret.You are compiling your own binaries without using GNU/Linux in the process? That's what a native development environment would look like.
No. I have an Ubuntu VM which I use for quick experiments and a very fast Ubuntu PC which I use for full builds. But I support lilypond because I _use_ it for typesetting music on a _Windows_ machine. Take away that ability to use it, and the sesire to support goes away.
- what does this do to our ONLY documentation writers and reviewers (who are all windows-based)? Will they be a) more motivated to work on lilypond, b) no change, or c) less motivated?We are already screwing them over with GNU/Linux-only "developer releases". When will we stop using our Windows and OSX developers as an excuse for not working on a stable release that would actually warrant the effort of getting GUB working again and matched to current Windows and OSX releases?Not true - see above.Documentation and web writing without a functional lilypond-book strikes me as somewhat difficult.
I don't use lilypond-book for day-day activity - only lilypond development.
It is nice that things are not as completely broken as I thought. But I still think that our effectively current philosophy of "the next stable release is something only developers interested in Windows and OSX need to concern themselves with" is doing anybody a favor. Our road map has nothing to offer beyond GUB, and so there is little interest in getting even there.
I think you've mis-stated the philosophy. It's "the next stable release is something that will benefit users of many operating systems, including many flavours of Unix, plus windows and MAC".
-- Phil Holmes
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |