Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia

[Glen Larsen]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

Federico Bruni <address@hidden> writes:

> Dear Lilyponders
>
> some recent posts in this list made me think about the weaknesses of
> Mutopia and why people who may contribute to it are not doing so.  I'd
> like to have some feedback from you. Which change in the Mutopia
> interface/decisions would make you start contributing or contributing
> more?

Mutopia scores tend to be useful as PDF only, the equivalent of dead
paper.  They usually have been compiled with an ancient version of
LilyPond nobody has available any more.

As a result, recompilation, transposing, changes of paper format and
other things are hard.

Mutopia's biggest weakness is not that it is missing new contributions
but rather that the existing contributions become unusable.

So what's needed is:
a) automated run of convert-ly to all following available stable versions
b) an interface for people to say "PDF for upgraded file looks ok"
c) an interface for people to fix up files that fail after convert-ly or
   are unnecessary complex given new LilyPond features.
d) grading/voting mechanisms for scores/contributors
e) obsoleting files when they have been converted and the version is
really outdated (like, beyond Debian Stale from one year ago)

f) notification to original transcriber on pending update

Time to quantify "ancient" (which I know is substantial) The only way to achieve a reliable level of automation is to focus on the very old submissions. It is a good goal with or without automation.

-glen