[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: retrograding with convert-ly
From: |
-Eluze |
Subject: |
Re: retrograding with convert-ly |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:33:05 -0700 (PDT) |
dak-3 wrote:
>
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:29AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> -d means no update in version header unless changes happen. That is
>>> also usually what you would want. Without -d, the version of the last
>>> applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually
>>> causing a change).
>>>
>>> In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already
>>> newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the
>>> version header even without -d.
>>
>> If we did that, then people would complain "I'm using 2.16.2 but
>> convert-ly only updates my file to 2.16.0!".
>
> Which is exactly what is happening when the last rule of convert-ly is
> for 2.16.0 while the current version is 2.16.2.
>
>> This could be avoided by printing a message to the effect of "no
>> changes to apply; not changing version number in the file".
>
> Eluze converted for 2.15.41 with convert-ly from 2.15.41 and the file
> already being at 2.15.41, and he complained that the version header was
> set back to 2.15.40.
>
>> As a general rule, I don't think it matters whether we make -d or not
>> -d the default;
>
> That was not even the question.
>
>> what matters most is providing good information to the user in some
>> combination of program output and/or documentation.
>
> I prefer changing useless behavior over documenting it.
>
>
+1
first of all I'm relieved it is only a shallow bug and the functionality of
convert-ly is not touched.
the actual behavior is somewhat confusing, but tbh I only detected this
after using it for several years.
thanks
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/retrograding-with-convert-ly-tp34160943p34166631.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/14
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Graham Percival, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly,
-Eluze <=
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/17
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/16