Re: [oll-user] OLLib<->LilyPond | Contribution/review

[Joseph R. W. <jos...@we...>]

On 04/06/2013 01:32 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> Good point. But I don't think we should over-emphasize OLLib's potential 
> as a 'staging area' for LilyPond.

Yes.  It should be one purpose that OLLib can serve, rather than _the_ purpose.

> I'd rather say that we should have a rather strict policy of including 
> only material in OLLib that has got a certain degree of approval. This 
> means that we should discuss the point of including any functionality at 
> all, and  have a somewhat strict review process before pushing 
> contributions to the master branch.

Exactly.  You're not LSR -- this is stuff that is guaranteed to have had review
and thought and where the design has been considered with some care, not
someone's personal private solution that has been chucked over the wall and will
no longer be maintained.

(Obviously lots of stuff in LSR was carefully thought out by its contributors
and I'm sure that individual people did try and maintain their contributions,
but the design of LSR didn't ensure that stuff _would_ be maintained or well
designed.  OLLib is different in that respect.)

> So first we should consider whether a proposed addition makes sense as 
> an enhancement of OLLib and already get an idea if we consider it 
> appropriate to propagate it for inclusion into LilyPond.
> Then we should review patches and discuss them with regards also to 
> syntactical consistence with LilyPond's conventions.

Sure, you can decide on a case-by-case basis whether a feature is obviously
Lilypond-bound (in which case OLLib can literally be a staging/testing area),
whether it's something more experimental which may or may not turn out to be
worth sending to LP in the future, or whether it's something that is useful but
guaranteed to never be something worth putting in the core LP project.

> That's a good idea, and you may have noticed that I started my research 
> on this topic.

Yes, I saw.  Good for you for moving so quickly! :-)

> But (for the sake of having an example) I'd nevertheless keep the SUp 
> versions as shorthands in a library, because they would then be 
> shorthands for \staffUp \voiceOne etc. (which I wouldn't consider as 
> really natural for being included in LilyPond proper).

The nice thing about OLLib is that you can actually maintain stuff like this
without damaging anyone.