Re: stencil-integral: use box extents specified in markup; issue 3255 (issue 9295044)

[dak]

On 2013/08/30 08:55:15, mike7 wrote:
> On 30 août 2013, at 10:11, mailto:address@hidden wrote:

> > On 2013/08/30 07:41:49, mike7 wrote:
> >
> >> I'd still argue that (2) is the best way to go as it is a
> > one-stop-shopping way
> >> to clear all these bugs (and perhaps more) as they arise.
> >
> > Since we are currently in the process of recovering from the last
> > one-stop-shopping way to clear bugs galore which is where all those
> > regressions are actually from,

> The skyline code was not written to address bugs.

Neither is this here.  We are talking about changing established
behavior to something different.  And the motivation for that _is_ the
responsibility of the skyline code.

But if you want a "one-stop-shopping way to clear bugs galore" from
which we are still recovering, take a look at issue 3199.  It's
responsible for at least issues 3359, 3360, 3385 and was pushed
without even waiting for the review to clear.

> LilyPond's previous spacing algorithms weren't buggy - they were
> just less snug than they are now.

"Snug" reminds me of issue 2527, another problem solver responsible
for issues 3363, 3465, 3497.

> > I suggest that we refrain from embracing your somewhat optimistic
> > estimates until after wrapping up a stable release.

> I don't see the relationship between the two.

Which makes it a good thing that you are not pursuing a career as
project manager.

At any rate, we are trying to stabilize our code base in a timely
manner suitably for a stable release, and the established track record
of ingenious solutions solving all problems in one fell swoop does not
suggest that this is the way to go.


https://codereview.appspot.com/9295044/