[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reasoning behind convert-ly rule for stable update?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Reasoning behind convert-ly rule for stable update? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:05:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 06:12:16PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody know _why_ convert-ly updates at least to the last stable
>> version number even if nothing else has been changed?
>
> Yes, because it's confusing for some users if they've downloaded
> the latest and greatest lilypond 2.18.0, run convert-ly, and see
> that their files are 2.17.37.
Well, they can use -c then.
> If you check the git history on convert-ly or convert-rules, then
> check the mailing list archives from a few days before then, you'll
> see the discussion. Or this might even be in the issue tracker.
>
> Also, when dealing with large collections of files, it's
> reassuring that the files really are current as-of 2.x.0. I mean,
> if I see input/regression/foo.ly being 2.13.5, does that mean that
> people forgot to run convert-ly, or does it mean that it really
> has no syntax changes since then?
If you want the former, use -c. If I see input/regression/foo.ly being
2.16.0, does that mean that people forgot to run convert-ly, or does it
means that it really has no syntax changes since then?
The most important thing is that if I see
Documentation/snippet/some-file.ly, I can figure out whether it will run
with 2.16.2 even when it is contained in 2.18.0.
And then there are the merge conflicts from gratuitous changes. I'll
take a look whether I can dig up the discussion.
--
David Kastrup
Re: Reasoning behind convert-ly rule for stable update?, Graham Percival, 2013/11/24