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

[David Kastrup]

Gilles Sadowski <address@hidden> writes:

> 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 don't think that LilyPond can reasonably split a project along the
lines of "independent chunks" since chunks basically are not independent
and can communicate using variables and functions.

It is more realistic to work with some parallelism and pipelining in the
different processing stages.

-- 
David Kastrup