|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: A thought on Windows Experience |
Date: | Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:06:42 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 |
Am 04.12.2013 20:24, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup:Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache. And the documentation would need adapting as well. That's not to say anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the other way round. It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor ;-)Not really. We'd just recommend downloading and installing Frescobaldi on certain platforms for getting a customary user experience rather than a command line application.
OK. Then I suggest we will come back if we have managed to integrate LilyPond installation in Frescobaldi (Actually Wilbert says it was in Frescobaldi 1, although Linux only). I think it's a good idea to do it in Frescobaldi anyway, then we/you can still consider how to communicate it to the end-user.
Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality in Fresobaldi.For a very variable value of "trivial". But I think it would make sense to do this distribution of labor/development for platforms where it would work.
Of course.
It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured LilyPond instances. Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of Frescobaldi. Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway.It seems like a more common use case to use Frescobaldi for managing multiple LilyPond's installed by LilyPond's installer than the other way round, namely managing multiple Frescobaldi instances.
{ \updateFrescobaldi #'stable-only } LOLBut actually I've implemented a menu in Frescobaldi that allows you to switch versions based on Git branches available. The next steps will be to update through Git, then allow switching to versions on branches of other remotes (i.e. contributors). Of course everything can be done with a few Git commands. But I'm sure it will boost the collaborative spirit if there's a menu structure telling me which branches other contributors are working on.
Urs
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |