lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Add backup option to convert-ly (Issue 3572) (issue 14040043)


From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Add backup option to convert-ly (Issue 3572) (issue 14040043)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:29:50 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eluze" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Add backup option to convert-ly (Issue 3572) (issue 14040043)


Phil Holmes-2 wrote
On 2013/09/30 15:10:00, PhilEHolmes wrote:
Julien - I'm not convinced that's a good idea.  It would mean that,
once you'd
"turned numbering on", then you couldn't turn it off except by
deleting all the
numbered files.  I think it's better to let the user select, based on
the
command line switches.

By deleting or renaming the _first_ numbered file.  I think that's ok as
a default, but it might make sense to have an option -n0 or whatever
that explicitly turns it off even when there are already numbered
backups.

It was Eluze's enhancement and his coding.  Let's let him decide.

to clarify: my intention was to have a backup to which I can revert if
necessary (and I don't have to go back to an original file which could be
hard to find)

I see 2 main scenarios:

a) convert-ly a single file - in my system I press ctrl+F11 (or the
corresponding pop-up item) and it's done. if for any reason I forget I've
already done this and I press this combination a second time my original is
gone.

b) convert-ly a full folder (eg. a piece with lots of files or the whole
LSR) - here I would copy the whole folder to a new one (mentioning the
version) and convert the original. if something goes wrong I still have the
original. for this I don't need a backup from LilyPond.

the choice of the backup's name is secondary - I'm happy with any of the
proposed versions (1 or 2 tildes).

now to the sophisticated mechanisms: if there is a (recognized) backup in
one or the other form in the *whole* folder, convert-ly should prompt for a
decision - numbered or not!? this is most likely beyond your (or my)
intention.

should we specify more clearly the risks of and how to handle convert-ly?

Eluze


I think the review is taking a fairly simple issue to make it too complex. Let's go with what we now have. If it's not friendly, we can always change it. Note that this does not change existing operation in any way.

--
Phil Holmes



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]