Re: Updating Snippets in the LSR when versions are updated

[Philip Rhoades]

David,


On 2014-01-17 03:12, David Kastrup wrote:
> Philip Rhoades <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > People,
> >
> > After being bitten (unnecessarily) by old code in the LSR and having a
> > continuing argument with David about how it came about - I have to ask
> > -
> > is there any reason why all the snippets in the LSR can't be
> > automatically updated when a new version is introduced?
>
> We don't have control over the users' computers, so we can't upgrade
> their LilyPond version ourselves.


I understand that (I am a user) but why is the person who administers 
the LSR "a user"?


> The current Debian stable is at version 2.14.2:
> <URL:http://packages.debian.org/source/wheezy/lilypond>
>
> > Surely this would not be hard to do?
>
> It isn't.  That's what convert-ly is available for.
>
> > If the Guile syntax is changing so often, what is the point of keeping
> > old code in the LSR?
>
> You mean: LilyPond syntax.  The point is supporting all current users 
> of
> LilyPond that don't have outdated systems.  The current Debian stable
> uses 2.14.


OK, that is a reasonable argument - but like lots of other software, 
there has to be an EOL - why should the LSR continue to support ancient 
versions of Lilypond forever at the expense of efficiency for new users 
and others generally?


> > It is fair enough to tell people that they have to convert THEIR OWN
> > code but the people who run the LSR, repo should be responsible for
> > keeping that up to date . .
>
> The LSR does not differentiate between versions, so it has to provide
> stuff working for the oldest stable legitimately in use.


See above.


> That's arguably a deficiency.  I am sure that your offers to extend the
> LSR code accordingly will be appreciated by the person running the LSR.


I obviously don't understand why the LSR is being run by a "user" who 
seems to be uncontactable . . why isn't it part of the Lilypond 
structure proper?  I presume there are historical reasons . .


> > If there is an argument for keeping a snippet in it's original form
> > because of historical significance or something - an archive could be
> > kept of it.
> >
> > Just my 2c . .
>
> That will not buy a lot of code...


Good one!

Regards,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW      2001
Australia
E-mail:  address@hidden