Re: LSR lovers: walk the walk

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 18:54:02 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:46:22PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 17:31:19 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > > 1. we need to ask Sebastiano to upgrade LSR to 2.14.1.  This may
> > > require extra manual attention to upgrade some snippets that
> > > convert-ly can't handle.
> > 
> > Actually, I have been thinking about implementing multiple-version
> > support in LSR (i.e. snippets for 2.12, 2.14 and master). The database
> > already has some fields min_version and max_version, but they have not
> > been used since 2.4.3...
> 
> I don't think we should ever use unstable for lsr.  If a snippet
> compiles in the current stable, then just use stable; if it
> requires unstable, then I forsee too many people getting confused
> about that.

From a contributors point of view: If a snippet compiles with current stable, 
fine, it can be used at LSR. However, if it doesn't compile with current 
stable, I can't add it to the LSR now, so it probably won't get added to the 
LSR ever.

We also have several snippets with workarounds for 2.12, where some 
functionality has been added to 2.14 (like the compound time signatures). I 
think the LSR should more clearly state the version for which a snippet is 
actually intended.

People looking for compound signatures will find that snippet now, although the 
functionality has been added to 2.14. On the other hand, those who have to 
stay with 2.12 for some reason are interested in the 2.12-only snippet.
Similarly, many of us are on master even for production systems.

Cheers,
Reinhold

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org