Re: LSR lovers: walk the walk

[Valentin Villenave]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.

If the release cycle does get shorter (wishful thinking inside ;), I
can imagine making do with the current system. Maintaining a
"stable-only" LSR does make sense, even if it means commenting out
some snippets until they can be handled (see below).

> 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.

Indeed. However, the situation looked much worse to me a couple years
ago when waiting for the 2.12 upgrade. It may because I've taken a
step back since then, but it does seem less of a bloody mess today.

This is also one of the reason why I introduced the notion of tags in
lsr. We used to have only one "version-specific" tag that allowed me
to browse through snippets that had a chance of being either outdated
or fully commented out; we could improve upon this system by having a
number of version-specific tags, such as "2.14", "2.15", "2.12" etc.
Granted, this wouldn't solve the problem of multiple-version
requirement (and possibly the necessity of temporary commenting out
some snippets), but it would be a convenient (albeit inelegant)
workaround, furthermore one we can set up in 15 seconds right now.

> 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.

I'm gonna go all grahamish on this one: we can't, won't, don't care
enough to, support these users. There are a number of people still
using 2.10 'cause it came with their distro, 2.8 'cause it's what
they're used to, 1.6 'cause they like the TeX backend...

(However, here again the tagging ability of the LSR may be of use to
some of these people.)

Anyways, the "LSR lover" I am has now pushed a minor update onto
master. Nothing too extraordinary. Once again, Phil and I are
available for any LSR-related question, a snippet that won't be
accepted or whatevs. Perhaps the easiest way to go, btw, would be to
simply add a basic contact-form to the LSR website, where people can
send bleeding-edge/outdated/uncompilable snippets for us to manually
review/comment out/translate/convert/commit as we see fit.

Cheers,
Valentin.