Re: Hushing up Sibelius news?

[Urs Liska]

Am 04.03.2013 15:16, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM, address@hidden
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > This is a great idea.  What'd I'd recommend is doing a "natural" version and a 
> > version with lots of tweaks.
> > If you define all the tweaks in a separate file, then all you need to do is sub 
> > that file with one that has empty definitions.
> > This will help developers know how far LilyPond is from automating certain 
> > decisions.
> That's not a bad idea (saving tweaks separately), but what about
> fousing on clearly separating commits that introduce tweaks?  I.e.
> enter all music first (to avoid conflicts later on), and then add
> corrections; by filtering out particular commits it would be easy to
> get a view of the piece at various stages of "beautification". For
> example, take a look at
> https://github.com/janek-warchol/eja-mater-demonstration .
Sorry for not answering your first post about this. The archive with the 
repo actually was part of the message and I downloaded it.
It is a beautiful example of a Git history and can surely be used for 
demonstration purposes.
Unfortunately I didn't have the time so far as to investigate it in 
terms of LilyPond's job (as you asked in your other email of today).

Best
Urs
> best,
> Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user