Re: Issue 871 in lilypond: support for MacOS X 10.6 snow leopard

[lilypond]

Comment #5 on issue 871 by percival.music.ca: support for MacOS X 10.6 snow  
leopard
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=871

marnelk wrote:
> > Our guideline for a stable release is "does it work
> > better than the previous version".

> But...no, 2.13.6 did not work better than the previous version.

And 2.13.6 wasn't a stable release.  2.13 is an UNSTABLE, DEVELOPMENT  
version number.

> At least the command line tool in the earlier
> versions worked on Leopard,

Did they work in 10.6?  No?  Then 2.13.6 was not worse than the previous  
version.  So
even if we disregard 2.13 being unstable, there was still no reason not to  
release
2.13.6.

> That seems
> insane to me -- and I say that from the point of view of an experienced
> developer.  At the very least, I
> suppose it explains why there was *never* really a working GUI build for  
> Leopard.

The working GUI was 2.13.3 or something like that.  Working for OSX 10.5;  
it's not
our fault that apple broke stuff in 10.6.

I'm glad that you're an "experienced developer".  I guess this means that  
you get a
lot of money for programming during working hours?


Look, this is a VOLUNTEER, OPEN-SOURCE project.  "open source" doesn't  
mean "we are
your personal bit^H^H^Hslaves".  It means "if it's broken, you can easily  
help to fix
it."  the GUI on osx 10.5 was broken until somebody (a non-main lilypond  
developer)
fixed it.  The font loading thing was broken on 10.6 until somebody (as it  
happened,
this time it was a main lilypond developer) fixed it.

The fastest way to drive developers away from an open-source project is to  
make
demands.  We do this in the evenings, on weekends, and sometimes during  
our "normal
jobs" if we don't think our supervisors will notice.  I don't demand that  
you go and
volunteer at a local animal shelter on your free time, so don't demand that  
I work on
your pet bugs for an OS that I don't even have.

If you're paying me money, you can make demands in proportion to the amount  
you're
paying me.  If we're having sex on a regular basis, then you can make  
demands with
the amount of joy I get from said activities.  If you're my parents and  
raised me for
over 20 years, then you can make any demands you want.


Notwithstanding the above, I would *love* it if I could use the Priority  
field to
indicate actual importance, rather than the rather oddly-defined "what  
kinds of
releases does this prevent".  But we can't do that unless we have a team of  
people at
my beck and call, willing to work on whatever bugs I rank as having highest  
priority.

Since we don't have that (see above about "open-source" and "volunteer"),  
the current
situation is as good as we're going to get.  I mean, there's absolutely no  
point in
declaring something as High priority if everybody ignores it and works on  
medium/low
priority stuff, right?  I suppose that if we gave out points based on the  
priority of
the bugs somebody fixes, it could still make sense, but I'm not (quite)  
arrogant
enough to believe that people would spend hours just to gain artificial  
points in an
arbitrarily system devised by me.

If you disagree with this policy, then I welcome you to join the  
development team and
put your effort behind whatever bugs you consider should be fixed.  Or  
rather... I
invite you to join the development team and put your efforts behind  
whatever bugs *I*
consider should be fixed, since that's really what an  
accurately-named "priority"
field would be.


--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings