Re: Autocompilation/LilyPond

[David Kastrup]

Ian Hulin <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David, Mark,
> I am still around, I've not had much time for hacking lately as I've
> been getting sick again, and the meds tend to sap the higher brain
> functions.

I'll be taking a closer look in several days (my schedule does not
really permit me doing much before the end of next week when I'll hold a
talk about LilyPond).

And I certainly wish you all the best for getting well.  But the main
points of what I wrote are not rendered invalid: you were put back
repeatedly to square one by delays (whatever might have caused them),
and if you had managed to do everything at once, the change would not
have been easily reviewable, and would have made our change history very
difficult to navigate, and would have rendered it very hard to track
whether already made changes were lost.

Just recently, we had a mishap with git and merging diverging branches
that caused about two versions worth of work to disappear.  I figured
out a cure (probably not the optimal one), and about 35 already verified
issues needed to get rechecked, by looking whether the changes had been
properly reintroduced by my fix.  This verification was achieved in
several days due to the bug squad working overtime.  And the patches
that were checked only had to be checked to be present in the same place
as before.

If we would need to verify a large _reorganisation_ of the source to be
up to date, this would be much much more intractable.  We really need to
be able to do this in smaller steps.  And it is not your health that is
causing a holdback, but rather the health of the project.

I am glad for the information you gave here, and I'll try picking up on
it after the conference.

I wish you the best regarding your health, and with some luck, by the
time you are interested in getting to work on LilyPond again, this rock
of Sisyphos will already be on the other side, making room for more
rewarding things.

All the best

-- 
David Kastrup