Re: Draft: Extended mensural notation support

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>I have a working draft of the Lilypond coding, which involves quite
>>a bit of Scheme code, a patched Lilypond font with a section of new
>>proposed glyphs, and a few minor patches to Lilypond's C++ codebase.
>>Unfortunately, owing to the latter, the whole system currently works
>>only with a patched, custom-compiled Lilypond installation.  I'd
>>like to hear if there's interest among the Lilypond folks to merge
>>these extensions into the standard distribution, and how best to
>>proceed to do so.

Congrats!  It's indeed very impressive.

> I think it should be implemented in LilyPond.

Yes.

> And I think that the things you have found in LilyPond that are
> inconsistent with best practices (e.g.  the incorrect use of "flexa"
> when it should be "obliqua" or "oblonga"; misnomer of maxima and
> longa rests) should be fixed.

Indeed.  Most of us are no experts in Gregorian chant, and if you are
willing to help here, this would be great.

> It would seem that the way to go about fixing this is to create a
> patch for submission.

No.  Not a patch, but a series of patches, adding the stuff in small,
incremental steps that are easy to review.  I'm willing to proof-read
all changes to the Metafont sources.

To simplify the process, I suggest that you get write access to the
lilypond git repository so that you can add such incremental patches
to one or more separate branches (I like this method bettern than the
`modern' way of forking lilypond at github, then followed by push
requests) – unfortunately, with Rietveld you only see all commits
squeezed to a single commit.  After a first review, you could add a
new branches that replaces older ones with better commits, etc., etc.
If we have concensus, it should be easy then to merge everything into
`staging'.


    Werner