Re: GSoC 2016

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 26.01.2016 um 10:21 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> Personally I don't think "integrating ScholarLY" with LilyPond is the
>> right course: it is a rather special-purpose case.  I think the question
>> we should rather solve is how to modify LilyPond and its tools and
>> infrastructure such that it becomes easy to fetch, drop in, and maintain
>> things like ScholarLy when developed externally.
>>
>> Basically CTAN for LilyPond.  I mean, the acronym CLAN is actually
>> nice.

[...]

> Actually what you are writing is very much what I am
> thinking. ScholarLY (and all the other conceivable libraries) are
> indeed better suited for external development and maintenance.

[...]

> So my question could be rephrased: Would it be acceptable to suggest a
> GSoC project if such an external library is *not* going to be included
> in LilyPond directly? With regard to the project I'm convinced that
> this would work out in the context/frame of a GSoC project.

I think so.  Now part of the GSoC idea (which has so far not worked very
convincingly for us) is to make a student build long-term ties into a
project.  For this to work, it would be a good idea if the student had
an actual long-term interest in scholarly editions rather than just some
programming project.

-- 
David Kastrup