Re: maintaining advanced power-user Scheme functions

[Urs Liska]

Am 19.08.2013 12:25, schrieb Phil Holmes:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek Warchoł" 
> <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Thomas Morley" <address@hidden>; "lilypond-user" 
> <address@hidden>; "Phil Hézaine" <address@hidden>; 
> "David Nalesnik" <address@hidden>; "LilyPond Developmet 
> Team" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: maintaining advanced power-user Scheme functions
>
>
> > 2013/8/19 Phil Holmes <address@hidden>:
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek"
> > >> After some thinking, i came to the conclusion that LSR should be
> > >> redesigned.
> > >> Fristly, it should be a git repository, to make collaboration easy -
> > >> when something's a git repository, i have a habit of contributing
> > >> stuff there on every opportunity, because even if i do something 
> > wrong
> > >> i can undo this.
> > >
> > > I'd guess you're in a minority of about 1% of users who would 
> > prefer > using
> > > git to using a web interface. The current web interface allows you to
> > > copy-and-paste code directly in, or alternatively to type it 
> > directly > in.
> > > Both are simple and quick. To use git propoerly requires installing 
> > a > new
> > > program and learning how to use it. Remember yesterday when you > 
> > recommended
> > > a whole book about how it's used? If that doesn't put off casual
> > > contributors, nothing will. I started work on LilyPond by adding > 
> > regtests
> > > to the LSR. If git had been required, I wouldn't have done so.
> >
> > A valid concern, but i have a counterargument: there is a web
> > interface for git that allows you to copy-and-paste code directly in,
> > or alternatively to type it directly in. Both are quite simple and
> > quick. This doesn't require installing a new program and learning how
> > to use it.
> >
> > It's github.
> >
> > I've just checked and made a couple commits using that web interface.
> > Plain and simple, *with* all the advantages of git underneath. Of
> > course i may be biased, so i invite you to check this with me. I
> > believe that i will be able to explain everything that's needed in
> > 5-10 minutes. Would you like to try?
>
> I've never used the web interface, but I'm prepared to believe it's 
> quick and easy if you say it is.  However, my other opposition to git 
> for this purpose is that it's intended as a Version Control system, 
> which is completely unnecessary for the LSR - that's just a simple 
> database of text, with no version control needed.

Version control _can_ be useful for a collection like the LSR. Think of 
providing snippets for more than one LilyPond version. If I'm using 2.16 
I will download a different snippet than for 2.17.24 ...
> > Actually, i believe that it would be good to have lilypond repository
> > on github, so that new contributors would be able to create patches
> > easily. They wouldn't have to install a virtual machine with Lilydev.
> > Found a typo in documentation? Create a fix and submit it in *2
> > minutes.*
>
> And completely bu**er the make doc in the process.  That's what the 
> issue tracker is for and why the patch control system exists.

That's not quite right. Github offers the concept of pull requests for 
exactly this purpose.
Opening a pull request on Github could have the same function like 
uploading a patch for review.

> > >> Secondly, i think that it shouldn't depend on any particular lilypond
> > >> version - in fact, it shouldn't actually run any lilypond in my
> > >> opinion. I believe that LSR should hold both snippets' code and their
> > >> output, with lilypond version clearly stated, and thus allow to post
> > >> snippets for any lilypond version. It would just be a collection of
> > >> snippets.
> > >
> > > The benefit of it running LilyPond is that it shows the result of 
> > the > code
> > > on the fly - no need to create and upload images. This is another
> > > significant benefit.
> >
> > I'm not sure if i understand. Does LSR compile snippets every time i
> > open its webpage?
> > Anyway, i'm not saying that LSR shouldn't be able to run LilyPond,
> > just that it should not require this for operation.
>
> It compiles the snippets every time one is changed, and stores the 
> resultant images in clickable form.  Can git do that?
>
> It also exports the snippets so that they can be imported into the 
> documents - which git can't do.

_Git_ can be used for all this too.
But I doubt you could make Github work in this way.
I think in order to design a Git driven LSR variant you'd have to create 
a new web application on top of a self-hosted Git installation.

So I'm afraid this isn't an option currently (as I don't see who would 
be willing and able to dive into one more project right now).

> > >> I could elaborate on this topic, but as i don't have time to actually
> > >> do something about it it probably wouln't make sense (unless someone
> > >> wanted to lead such a change - then i would gladly help).
> > >
> > > It doesn't need much changing - the main problem is maintaining the 
> > web
> > > site.
> >
> > What if the things i pointed out make it hard to maintain?
> > I'd just like to point this out:
> > - with current system, i know that i'm not going to help with updating
> > LSR. If i had more time, i'd gladly do that, but i don't have.
> > However, if it was independent from LilyPond version - i.e. updating
> > one snippet means that the update becomes instantly visible, because
> > updating isn't an all-or-nothing deal - i would gladly update some
> > snippets from time to time, if it could be done "via git".
> > - i have some valuable snippets and templates myself, and i'd like to
> > share them, but i don't see how they could fit with current LSR
> > system.
> > - i have 79 emails marked "valuable snippet". Adding them to LSR (the
> > way it works currently) would require a lot of work, and i don't have
> > time for this. But if the LSR worked another way, i could do
> > something about it.
>
> If you would actually try the LSR, you'll see it's equally quick to 
> enter snippets - each takes a few seconds or a minute at most. All 
> that you need to do is type the snippet (or paste it) and a 
> description - you can't do _less_ with any other system.  What do you 
> find so time-consuming?

Well, one issue is that one can only upload snippets that work with 2.14.

Urs