Re: Another round of questions

[David Kastrup]

Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> writes:

> On 5/16/20, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> IMHO only bugfixes should be applied to `musicxml2ly` since `xml2ly`
>> covers much more of MusixXML (and will, AFAIK, also eventually support
>> its successor, MNX).
>
> Huh.  xml2ly has very different requirements than musicxml2ly and is
> (AFAICS) unlikely to ever be integrated into LilyPond.  Anecdotally, I
> have encountered several cases where musicxml2ly turned to provide
> much more useful output than xml2ly (but that was a couple of years
> ago, maybe its development has sped up since then).
>
> Plus, since we’re discussing python-based tools, there are a few
> useful functions being developed in python-ly (as part of
> Frescobaldi), which share a bit more DNA with musicxml2ly than with
> anything else.  So I wouldn’t count musicxml2ly out just yet.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with maintaining tools while they are
used and distributed.  In a corporate setting, alloting large amounts of
resources into a part of the tool set that has a perspective to be
replaced in the course of a corporate development makes of course little
sense.

We aren't there.  We have no timetable for a replacement or its
viability, and so I don't see the point in discouraging contributors
from making fixes to what will continue for an indeterminate time to be
part of the tool set useful for achieving objectives.

-- 
David Kastrup