1 @c -*- coding: utf-8; mode: texinfo; -*-
2 @node Administrative policies
3 @chapter Administrative policies
5 This chapter discusses miscellaneous administrative issues which
6 don't fit anywhere else.
9 * Meta-policy for this document::
10 * Environment variables::
13 * Administrative mailing list::
14 * Grand Organization Project (GOP)::
15 * Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)::
19 @node Meta-policy for this document
20 @section Meta-policy for this document
22 The Contributor's Guide as a whole is still a work in progress,
23 but some chapters are much more complete than others. Chapters
24 which are @qq{almost finished} should not have major changes
25 without a discussion on @w{@code{-devel}}; in other chapters, a
26 disorganized @qq{wiki-style dump} of information is encouraged.
28 Do not change (other than spelling mistakes) without discussion:
33 @ref{Introduction to contributing}
36 @ref{Working with source code}
40 Please dump info in an appropriate @@section within these manuals,
41 but discuss any large-scale reorganization:
49 @ref{Documentation work}
55 @ref{Regression tests}
58 @ref{Programming work}
63 Totally disorganized; do whatever the mao you want:
77 @ref{Administrative policies}
82 @node Environment variables
83 @section Environment variables
85 Some maintenance scripts and instructions in this guide rely on
86 the following environment variables. They should be predefined in
87 LilyDev distribution (see @ref{LilyDev}); if you set up your own
88 development environment, you can set them by appending these settings to
89 your @file{~/.bashrc} (or whatever defines your default environment
90 variables for the user account for LilyPond development), then logging
91 out and in (adapt directories to your setup):
94 LILYPOND_GIT=~/lilypond-git
96 LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR=~/lilypond-git/build
97 export LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR
100 The standard build and install procedure (with @code{autogen.sh},
101 @code{configure}, @code{make}, @code{make install}, @code{make doc}
102 @dots{}) does not rely on them.
104 In addition, for working on the website, @code{LILYPOND_WEB_MEDIA_GIT}
105 should be set to the repository lilypond-extra, see
106 @ref{lilypond-extra}.
112 We have four jobs for organizing a team of contributors:
117 Bug Meister: trains new Bug Squad volunteers, organizes who works
118 on which part of their job, checks to make sure that everything is
119 running smoothly, and has final say on our policy for Issues.
124 Doc Meister: trains new doc editors/writers, organizes who works
125 on which part of the job, checks to make sure that everything is
126 running smoothly, and has final say on our policy for
127 Documentation. Also includes LSR work.
132 Translation Meister: trains new translators, updates the
133 translation priority list, and handles merging branches (in both
139 Frog Meister: is responsible for code patches from (relatively)
140 inexperienced contributors. Keeps track of patches, does initial
141 reviewing of those patches, sends them to @w{@code{-devel}} when
142 they've had some initial review on the Frog list, pesters the
143 @w{@code{-devel}} community into actually reviewing said patches, and
144 finally pushes the patches once they're accepted. This person is
145 @emph{not} responsible for training new programmers, because that
146 would be far too much work -- his/her job is @qq{only} to guide
147 completed patches through our process.
149 Currently: Mike Solomon
156 @subheading Introduction
158 Patchy is a set of Python scripts to automate two administrative
163 @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py}: checks that new commits in
164 @code{staging} can compile the regtests and documentation before
165 merging @code{staging} into @code{master}.
167 (completely automatic)
170 @code{test-patches.py}: checks that patches apply to git master,
171 compile, and lets a human check that there are no big unintended
172 changes to the regtests.
174 (requires some human input)
178 @subheading Installing patchy
180 To install patchy, you should do the following:
184 Create a new user on your box to run patchy; this is a security
185 step for your own protection. It is recommended that this should
186 not be an administrator. New users are created from System;
187 Administration; Users and Groups.
190 Get the patchy scripts from
192 @uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/}
194 Patchy is in the @file{patches/} directory.
197 Put the scripts in a sensible place on your system
200 Create a new git repository with
202 git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
204 This will create a directory called lilypond with the repo in it.
205 Make sure it's where you want it and name it lilypond-git
206 (assuming you want to follow the standard naming conventions).
209 Create environment variables @var{LILYPOND_GIT} and
210 @var{LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR}, see @ref{Environment variables}.
213 Run patchy once to set up config files, answer @q{@code{n}} when it
214 asks for going on, unless the default config file happens to suit your
217 cd PATH/TO/lilypond-extra.git/patches
218 lilypond-patchy-staging.py
220 Following calls of @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} need not be made
221 from the directory where it stands.
224 Edit @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to provide the location of
225 your local lilypond Git repository, working directories for your build
226 directory, your results directory, compiler options and notification
227 method. If you don't want to use email notification, then delete
228 everything after @code{smtp_command:}.
231 Ensure that your new user has git push access. Follow the
232 instructions in the CG at @ref{Commit access}. Do not set
233 password protection for the key - if you do you will not be able
234 to run patchy unattended.
238 @subheading lilypond-patchy-staging.py
240 @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} is run with
242 python lilypond-patchy-staging.py
244 Not much appears to happen except you can see a lot of CPU gets
245 used if you open System Monitor. There's not much point running
246 @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} unless there is something in
247 staging to be merged to master, however, if there's nothing in
248 staging then the script won't waste resources by compiling
251 The script fetches the current patches in staging and runs
252 @code{make}, @code{make test} and @code{make doc} to ensure that all of
253 these complete error-free. If you have set patchy up to use email,
254 it emails its results to you. If you haven't, then you can view
255 them in a logfile. It also merges staging into master.
257 @subheading test-patches.py
258 test-patches prepares a regtest comparison for a human to quickly
259 glance at, to determine if the patch is ready for a review. After
260 looking at the comparison (or the lack of a comparison in the case
261 of problems), run @code{accept-patch.py} or
262 @code{reject-patch.py}.
264 Once a patch has gotten a "LGTM" from Patchy, it should be
265 reviewed by relevant developers, and if it passes this, it can be
266 considered for countdown (see @ref{Commits and patches}) and
267 pushing to staging (see @ref{Pushing to staging}).
270 @node Administrative mailing list
271 @section Administrative mailing list
273 A mailing list for administrative issues is maintained at
274 @code{lilypond-hackers@@gnu.org}.
276 This list is intended to be used for discussions that should be kept
277 private. Therefore, the archives are closed to the public.
279 Subscription to this list is limited to certain senior developers.
281 At the present time, the list is dormant.
283 Details about the criteria for membership, the types of discussion
284 to take place on the list, and other policies for the hackers list
285 will be finalized during the
286 @ref{Grand Organization Project (GOP)}.
290 @node Grand Organization Project (GOP)
291 @section Grand Organization Project (GOP)
297 Clarify the various development tasks by writing down the policies
298 and techniques and/or simplifying the tasks directly.
301 Get more people involved in development: specifically, find people
302 to do easy tasks to allow advanced developers to concentrate on
311 * Policy decisions (finished)::
315 @subsection Motivation
317 Most readers are probably familiar with the LilyPond Grand
318 Documentation Project, which ran from Aug 2007 to Aug 2008. This
319 project involved over 20 people and resulted in an almost complete
320 rewrite of the documentation. Most of those contributors were
321 normal users who decided to volunteer their time and effort to
322 improve lilypond for everybody. By any measure, it was a great
325 The Grand Organization Project aims to do the same thing with a
326 larger scope -- instead of focusing purely on documentation, the
327 project aims to improve all parts of LilyPond and its community.
328 Just as with GDP, the main goal is to encourage and train users to
329 become more involved.
331 If you have never contributed to an open-source project before --
332 especially if you use Windows or OSX and do not know how to
333 program or compile programs -- you may be wondering if there's
334 anything you can do. Rest assured that you @emph{can} help.
336 @subheading "Trickle-up" development
338 One of the reasons I'm organizing GOP is "trickle-up"
339 development. The idea is this: doing easy tasks frees up advanced
340 developers to do harder tasks. Don't ask "am I the @emph{best}
341 person for this job"; instead, ask "am I @emph{capable} of doing
342 this job, so that the current person can do stuff I @emph{can't}
345 For example, consider lilypond's poor handling of grace notes in
346 conjunction with clef and tempo changes. Fixing this will require
347 a fair amount of code rewriting, and would take an advanced
348 developer a few weeks to do. It's clearly beyond the scope of a
349 normal user, so we might as well sit back and do nothing, right?
351 No; we @emph{can} help, indirectly. Suppose that our normal user
352 starts answering more emails on lilypond-user. This in turn means
353 that documentation writers don't need to answer those emails, so
354 they can spend more time improving the docs. I've noticed that all
355 doc writers tackle harder and harder subjects, and when they start
356 writing docs on scheme programming and advanced tweaks, they start
357 contributing bug fixes to lilypond. Having people performing these
358 easy-to-moderate bug fixes frees up the advanced developers to
359 work on the really hard stuff... like rewriting the grace note
362 Having 1 more normal user answering emails on lilypond-user won't
363 have a dramatic @q{trickle-up} effect all by itself, of course. But if
364 we had 8 users volunteering to answer emails, 6 users starting to
365 write documentation, and 2 users editing LSR... well, that would
366 free up a lot of current bug-fixing-capable contributors to focus
367 on that, and we could start to make a real dent in the number of
368 bugs in lilypond. Quite apart from the eased workload, having that
369 many new helpers will provide a great moral boost!
372 @subsection Ongoing jobs
374 Although GOP is a short-term project, the main goal is to train
375 more people to handle ongoing jobs. The more people doing these
376 jobs, the lighter the work will be, and the more we can get done
379 Also, it would be nice if we had at least one "replacement" /
380 "understudy" for each role -- too many tasks are only being done
381 by one person, so if that person goes on vacation or gets very
382 busy with other matters, work in that area grinds to a halt.
384 @subheading Jobs for normal users
388 LilyPond is sometimes critized for not listening to users, but
389 whenever we ask for opinions about specific issues, we never get
390 enough feedback. This is somewhat aggravating.
391 We need a group of users to make a dedicated effort to test and
392 give feedback. If there's new documentation, read it. If there's
393 an experimental binary, download it and try compiling a score with
394 it. If we're trying to name a new command, think about it and give
397 @item lilypond-user support:
398 I think it would be nice if we had an official team of users
401 @item LilyPond Report:
402 Keeping a monthly newsletter running is a non-trivial task. A lot
403 of work is needed to organize it; it would be great if we could
404 split up the work. One person could write the Snippet of the
405 Month, another person could do Quotes of the Month, another person
406 could do interviews, etc.
409 Although GDP (the Grand Documentation Project) did great work,
410 there's still many tasks remaining.
413 Keeping the documentation translations is a monumental task; we
414 need all the help we can get!
418 @subheading Jobs for advanced users for developers
421 @item Git help for writers:
422 We often receive reports of typos and minor text updates to the
423 documentation. It would be great if somebody could create
424 properly-formatted patches for these corrections.
426 Technical requirements: ability to run @ref{LilyDev}.
429 LSR contains many useful examples of lilypond, but some snippets
430 are out of date and need updating. Other snippets need to be
431 advertized, and new snippets need to be sorted. We could use
432 another person to handle LSR.
434 Technical requirements: use of a web browser. LilyPond
435 requirements: you should be familiar with most of Notation
436 chapters 1 and 2 (or be willing to read the docs to find out).
438 @item Join the Frogs:
439 "Frogs" are a team of bug-fixers (because frogs eat bugs, and you
440 often find them in Ponds of Lilies) and new feature implementors.
442 Technical requirements: development environment (such as
443 @ref{LilyDev}), ability to read+write scheme and/or C++ code.
448 @node Policy decisions
449 @subsection Policy decisions
451 There are a number of policy decisions -- some of them fairly
452 important -- which we have been postponing for a few years. We
453 are now discussing them slowly and thoroughly; agenda and exact
454 proposals are online:
457 @uref{http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/index.html}
460 Below is a list of policies which are not @qq{on the agenda} yet.
462 Note that the presence of an item on this list does @emph{not}
463 mean that everybody thinks that something needs to be done.
464 Inclusion in this simply means that one developer thinks that we
465 should discuss it. We are not going to filter this list; if any
466 developer thinks we should discuss something, just add it to the
467 bottom of the list. (the list is unsorted)
469 As GOP progresses, items from this list will be put on the agenda
470 and removed from this list. I generally try to have one month's
471 discussion planned in advance, but I may shuffle things around to
472 respond to any immediate problems in the developer community.
474 There are some item(s) not displayed here; these are questions
475 that were posed to me privately, and I do not feel justified in
476 discussing them publicly without the consent of the person(s) that
477 brought them up. They will initially be discussed privately on the
478 lilypond-hackers mailing list -- but the first question will be
479 "do we absolutely need to do this privately", and if not, the
480 discussion will take place on lilypond-devel like the other items.
482 In most policy discussions in lilypond over the past few years,
483 the first half (or more) is wasted arguing on the basis of
484 incorrect or incomplete data; once all the relevant facts are
485 brought to light, the argument is generally resolved fairly
486 quickly. In order to keep the GOP discussions focused, each topic
487 will be introduced with a collection of relevant facts and/or
488 proposals. It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly which
489 facts will be relevant to the discussion -- but spending an hour
490 or two collecting information could still save hours of
493 @warning{The estimated time required for "prep work", and the
494 following discussion, has been added to each item. At the moment,
495 there is an estimated 30 hours of prep work and 140 hours of
499 @item @strong{Patch reviewing}:
500 At the time of this writing, we have 23 (known) patches waiting
501 for review. Some from main developers; some from new developers.
502 We desperately need more people helping with lilypond, but
503 ignoring patches is the best way to drive potential contributors
504 away. This is not good.
506 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
508 @item @strong{Official links to other organizations?}:
509 There's something called the "software freedom conservancy", and
510 in general, there's a bunch of "umbrella organizations". Joining
511 some of these might give us more visibility, possibly leading to
512 more users, more developers, maybe even financial grants or use in
515 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
517 @item @strong{Issue tracking with google code}:
518 We use the google issue tracker, but this means that we are
519 relying on a commercial entity for a large part of our
520 development. Would it be better (safer in the long run) to use the
521 savannah bug tracker?
523 (prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
525 @item @strong{Patch review tool}:
526 Reitveld is inconvenient in some respects: it requires a google
527 account, and there's no way to see all patches relating to
528 lilypond. Should we switch to something like gerritt?
529 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1184}
531 (prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
533 @item @strong{Clarity for sponsorships}:
534 We currently do not advertize bounties and sponsorships on the
535 webpage. How much advertising do we want, and what type?
536 Should we change the "structure" / "framework" for bounties?
538 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
540 @item @strong{code readability}:
541 "Our aim when producing source code for Lilypond in whatever
542 language is that it should be totally comprehensible to a
543 relatively inexperienced developer at the second reading."
546 - aids maintainability of code base
547 - "second reading" so newer developers can look up unfamiliar
549 - will help to keep things simple, even if the code is doing
550 complex stuff discourages "secret squirrel" coding, e.g. "how
551 much functionality can I squeeze into as few characters as
552 possible" "comments are for wimps"
553 - will aid not *discouraging* new developers to join the project
555 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
557 @item @strong{C++ vs. scheme}:
558 what should be in scheme, what should be in C++, what can/should
559 be ported from one to the other, etc. Questions of
560 maintainability, speed (especially considering guile 2.0), and the
561 amount of current material in either form, are important.
563 (prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
565 @item @strong{always make an issue number for patches}:
566 there is a proposal that we should always have a google code issue
567 number for every patch. This proposal is closely tied to our
568 choice of patch review tool; if we switch to a different tool (as
569 suggested in a different proposal), this proposal may become moot.
571 (prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
573 @item @strong{initalizer lists}:
574 shoudl we use initalizer lists for C++? AFAIK they make no
575 difference for built-in types, but there's some weird case where
576 it's more efficient for objects, or something.
578 Probably not worth making this a weekly thing on its own, but we
579 can probably wrap it up with some other code-related questions.
581 (prep: 15 minutes. discuss: 3 hours)
585 @node Policy decisions (finished)
586 @subsection Policy decisions (finished)
588 Here is a record the final decisions, along with links to the
592 * GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting::
593 * GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs::
594 * GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting::
595 * GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14::
596 * GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)::
597 * GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists::
598 * GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources::
599 * GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities::
600 * GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc::
603 @node GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
604 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
606 We will follow the indentation described in PEP-8.
607 @uref{http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/}
611 use 4 spaces per indentation level
614 never mix tabs and spaces (for indentation)
617 Code indented with a mixture of tabs and spaces should be
618 converted to using spaces exclusively
620 Once this is done, we should add @code{python -tt} to the build
621 system to avoid such errors in the future.
625 There should be absolutely no tab characters for indentation in
626 any @code{.py} file in lilypond git. All such files should be
627 converted to use spaces only.
629 @subsubheading Discussions
632 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00060.html}
633 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00084.html}
634 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00310.html}
635 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00574.html}
639 @node GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
640 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
642 Nothing much was decided. The list of responsibilities was
643 slightly altered; see the new one in @ref{Mentors}. We should
644 encourage more use of the Frogs mailing list. There's a list of
645 contributor-mentor pairs in:
648 @uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/people/mentors.txt}
651 That's pretty much it.
653 @subsubheading Discussions
656 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00311.html}
662 @node GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
663 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
665 Speaking academically, C++ code style is a "solved problem". Let's
666 pick one of the existing solutions, and let a computer deal with
667 this. Humans should not waste their time, energy, and creativity
668 manually adding tabs or spaces to source code.
670 We have modified @code{fixcc.py} to use astyle, along with extra
675 the final script will be run @strong{blindly} on the lilypond
676 source code. We will accept whatever formatting the final version
677 of this script produces, with no manual tweaking.
680 patches which have been run through this tool will not be rejected
681 for style reasons. Any code formatting @qq{desires} which are not
682 enforced by @code{fixcc.py} will not be considered grounds for
686 for now, this style will not be enforced. It is not cause for
687 concern if patches which do not follow the formatting done by
688 @code{fixcc.py} are pushed. From time to time, Graham will run
689 the formatter on the entire code base, and commit the resulting
692 In a few months, we will tighten up this policy item (with some
693 sort of automatic processing), but that is outside the scope of
694 this policy item and is a matter for later discussion.
697 after the proposal is accepted, we will leave some time for
698 existing patches to be accepted and pushed. The script was
699 run on the source code on @strong{2011 August 01}.
705 LilyPond is a GNU project, so it makes sense to follow the GNU
706 coding standards. These standards state:
709 We don’t think of these recommendations as requirements, because
710 it causes no problems for users if two different programs have
711 different formatting styles.
713 But whatever style you use, please use it consistently, since a
714 mixture of styles within one program tends to look ugly. If you
715 are contributing changes to an existing program, please follow the
716 style of that program.
719 (@uref{http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Formatting.html})
721 With that in mind, we do not think that we must blindly follow the
722 formatting given by the currrent version of Emacs.
724 @subheading Implementation notes
726 We can avoid some of the style change pollution in git history by
727 ignoring whitespaces changes:
733 @subsubheading Discussions
736 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00526.html}
737 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00796.html}
738 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00200.html}
739 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00525.html}
740 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
741 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
745 @node GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
746 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
750 A brief history of releases:
752 @multitable @columnfractions .2 .2 .3
753 @headitem date (YYYY-MM-DD) @tab version @tab comment
754 @item 2008-10-28 @tab 2.11.63 @tab nobody checking regtests
755 @item 2008-11-17 @tab 2.11.64
756 @item 2008-11-29 @tab 2.11.65
757 @item 2008-12-23 @tab 2.12.0
758 @item 2009-01-01 @tab @tab somewhere around here, Graham becomes
759 officially release manager, but Han-Wen still builds the actual
761 @item 2009-01-01 @tab 2.12.1
762 @item 2009-01-25 @tab 2.12.2
763 @item 2009-02-28 @tab 2.13.0
764 @item 2009-06-01 @tab 2.13.1 @tab note jump in time!
765 @item 2009-06-27 @tab 2.13.2 @tab first Graham release?
766 @item 2009-07-03 @tab 2.13.3
767 @item 2009-09-09 @tab @tab Graham arrives in Glasgow, gets a
768 powerful desktop computer, and begins serious work on GUB (sending
769 bug reports to Jan). It takes approximately 100 hours until GUB
770 is stable enough to make regular releases.
771 @item 2009-09-24 @tab 2.13.4
772 @item 2009-10-02 @tab 2.13.5
773 @item 2009-10-22 @tab 2.13.6
774 @item 2009-11-05 @tab 2.13.7
776 @item 2010-01-13 @tab 2.12.3
778 @item 2010-03-19 @tab 2.13.16 @tab Bug squad starts doing a few
779 regtest comparisons, but IIRC the effort dies out after a few
782 @item 2010-08-04 @tab 2.13.29 @tab Phil starts checking regtests (BLUE)
784 @item 2011-01-12 @tab 2.13.46 @tab release candidate 1 (GREEN)
786 @item 2011-05-30 @tab 2.13.63 @tab release candidate 7 (GREEN)
787 @item 2011-06-06 @tab 2.14.0
790 @c A graphical display of bugs:
792 @c @image{bugs-2.13-visualization,png}
793 @c @image{zoom-2.13-visualization,png}
795 @subheading Carl's analysis of the bugs
797 A @file{csv} spreadsheet is available.
800 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00852.html}
804 @uref{lilypond-issues-analysis.csv}
805 @uref{lilypond-issues-analysis-trim-duplicates.csv}
808 There 148 issues marked with Priority=Critical in the tracker.
810 I've done an analysis, and it looks to me like there was initially
811 a backlog of critical issues that weren't fixed, and little work
812 was being done to eliminate critical issues.
814 Somewhere about 2010-08-01, critical issues started to disappear,
815 but occasional new ones appeared.
817 There were a couple of major changes that introduced unanticipated
818 regressions (new spacing code, beam collision avoidance). These
819 produced more than the expected number of regressions.
821 It appears to me that we didn't really get serious about
822 eliminating critical bugs until about 2010-06-15 or so. After
823 that point, the number of critical bugs more-or-less steadily
824 decreased until we got to a release candidate.
826 Of particular interest, the first release candidate of 2.14 was
827 released on 2011-01-12. Over the next 10 days, about a dozen bugs
828 were reported and fixed. Release candidate 2 came out on
829 2011-02-09. No surge of bugs occurred with this release.
830 Candidate 3 came out on 2011-03-13; we got 2 bugs per week.
831 Candidate 4 came out on 2011-03-29; 2 new bugs. Candidate 6 came
832 out on 2011-04-07. We got a couple of bugs per week.
834 @subheading Notes, commentary, and opinions
837 Han-Wen: Overall, I think this cycle took too long
842 @subsubheading Discussions
845 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00797.html}
846 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00364.html}
851 @node GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
852 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
854 This proposal was too broad; after a month of discussion, Graham
855 withdrew the proposal. Portions of it will be introduced in later
858 @subsubheading Discussions
861 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00320.html}
862 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00527.html}
863 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00753.html}
864 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01042.html}
865 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00116.html}
866 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00310.html}
870 @node GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists
871 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing list
873 Potentially sensitive or private matters will be referred to
874 Graham. He will then decide who should discuss the matter on an
875 ad-hoc basis, and forward or CC them on future emails.
877 For emphasis, the project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and
878 Graham; those three will always be CC'd on any important
881 The lilypond-hackers mailing list will be removed.
885 There is some unhappy history about this idea in our development
889 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html}
890 @uref{http://news.lilynet.net/spip.php?article121}
891 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00076.html}
894 @subheading Other projects
896 The idea of private mailing lists is hardly uncommon in
897 open-source software. For example,
900 @uref{http://lwn.net/Articles/394660/} about debian-private
901 @uref{http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html} private@@
902 @uref{http://www.freebsd.org/administration.html#t-core}
903 @uref{http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/} board members pledge
904 to keep certain matters confidential
906 every security team of every linux distribution and OS
909 In fact, Karl Fogel's @qq{Producing Open Source Software}
910 explicitly suggests a private mailing list for some circumstances:
913 [on granting commit/push access to a contributor]
915 But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is
916 appropriate. You can't have votes about potential committers
917 posted to a public mailing list, because the candidate's feelings
918 (and reputation) could be hurt.
920 @uref{http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate}
923 @subheading Board of governers, voting, etc?
925 Many projects have an official board of directors, or a list of
926 @qq{core developers}, with set term limits and elections and
929 I don't think that we're that big. I think we're still small
930 enough, and there's enough trust and consensus decisions, that we
931 can avoid that. I would rather that we kept on going with
932 trust+consensus for at least the next 2-3 years, and spent more
933 time+energy on bug fixes and new features instead of
934 administrative stuff.
936 Project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and Graham.
938 @subsubheading Discussions
941 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00783.html}
942 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01004.html}
943 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00117.html}
947 @node GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
948 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
950 We shall treat developers (and contributors) as
951 @strong{Independent volunteers}: each person does whatever they
952 want, whenever they want. We have busy careers and lives; we make
953 no expectations of action from anybody (with the exception of the
954 6 people in @qq{Meister} positions).
956 @subsubheading Discussions
959 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01092.html}
960 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00087.html}
961 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00497.html}
965 @node GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
966 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
968 We will delete the @qq{priority} field of the issue tracker
969 altogether. The @qq{type} system will be tweaked.
976 a reproducible failure to build either @code{make} or @code{make
977 doc}, from an empty build tree, in a first run, if
978 @code{configure} does not report any errors.
981 any program behaviour which is @strong{unintentionally} worse than
982 the previous stable version or the current development version.
983 Developers may always use the @qq{this is intentional}, or even
984 the @qq{this is an unavoidable effect of an improvement in another
985 area}, reason to move this to a different type.
988 anything which stops contributors from helping out (e.g.
989 lily-git.tcl not working, source tree(s) not being available,
990 LilyDev being unable to compile git master, inaccurate
991 instructions in the Contributor's Guide 2 Quick start).
993 To limit this scope of this point, we will assume that the
994 contributor is using the latest LilyDev and has read the relevant
995 part(s) of the Contributor's Guide. Problems in other chapters of
996 the CG are not sufficient to qualify as Type-Critical.
1000 @subsubheading More new/changed types and labels
1002 Unless otherwise specified, the current types and labels will
1003 continue to be used. The new types introduced by this proposal
1009 Type-crash: any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks
1010 like or which options are given. Disclaimer: this might not be
1011 possible in some cases, for example certain guile programs (we
1012 certainly can't predict if a piece of scheme will ever stop
1013 running, i.e. the halting problem), or if we rely on other
1014 programs (i.e. ghostscript). If there are any such cases that
1015 make segfault-prevention impossible, we will document those
1016 exceptions (and the issue will remain as a "crash" instead of
1017 "documentation" until the warning has been pushed).
1020 Type-maintainability: anything which makes it difficult for
1021 serious contributors to help out (e.g. difficult to find the
1022 relevant source tree(s), confusing policies, problems with
1023 automatic indentation tools, etc).
1026 Type-ugly: replaces Type-collision, and it will include things
1027 like bad slurs in addition to actual collision.
1031 A new label will be added:
1035 (label) Needs_evidence: it is not clear what the correct output
1036 should look like. We need scans, references, examples, etc.
1040 @subheading Reminding users about stars
1042 We can remind users that they can @qq{star} an issue to indicate
1043 that they care about it. Since we resolved to treat developers as
1044 independent volunteers, there is no expectation that anybody will
1045 look at those stars, but if any developer want to organize their
1046 work schedule according to the stars, they are welcome to do so.
1048 @subsubheading Discussions
1051 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00019.html}
1052 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00277.html}
1053 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00413.html}
1054 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00624.html}
1059 @node GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
1060 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
1062 If there are build problems, then it should be easier to find out
1063 why it's failing. This will be achieved with log files, as well
1064 as possibly including scripts which automatically display portions
1065 of those log files for a failing build.
1067 We will also add targets for building a specific manual (for
1068 quick+easy checking of doc work), as well as for building all
1069 documentation in a specific language (either English or a
1070 translated language).
1072 When you run @code{make doc},
1077 All output will be saved to various log files, with the exception
1078 of output directly from @code{make(1)}.
1080 Note that @code{make(1)} refers to a specific executable file on
1081 unix computers, and is not a general term for the build system.
1084 By default, no other output will be displayed on the console, with
1085 one exception: if a build fails, we might display some portion(s)
1086 of log file(s) which give useful clues about the reason for the
1089 The user may optionally request additional output to be printed;
1090 this is controlled with the @code{VERBOSE=x} flag. In such cases,
1091 all output will still be written to log files; the console output
1092 is strictly additional to the log files.
1095 Logfiles from calling lilypond (as part of lilypond-book) will go in
1097 @file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/out/lybook-db/12/lily-123456.log} file. All
1098 other logfiles will go in the @file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/logfiles/}
1101 A single @code{make doc} will therefore result in hundreds of log
1102 files. Log files produced from individual lilypond runs are not
1103 under our control; apart from that, I anticipate having one or two
1104 dozen log files. As long as it is clear which log file is
1105 associated with which operation(s), I think this is entirely
1106 appropriate. The precise implementation will be discussed for
1107 specific patches as they appear.
1110 Both stderr and stdout will be saved in @code{*.log}. The order
1111 of lines from these streams should be preserved.
1114 There will be no additional @qq{progress messages} during the
1115 build process. If you run @code{make --silent}, a non-failing
1116 build should print absolutely nothing to the screen.
1119 Assuming that the loglevels patch is accepted, lilypond (inside
1120 lilypond-book) will be run with --loglevel=WARN.
1121 @uref{http://codereview.appspot.com/4822055/}
1124 Ideally, a failing build should provide hints about the reason why
1125 it failed, or at least hints about which log file(s) to examine.
1129 If this proposal is accepted, none of these policies will be
1130 assumed to apply to any other aspect of the build system.
1131 Policies for any other aspect of the build system will be
1132 discussed in separate proposals.
1134 @subheading Don't cause more build problems
1136 However, there is a danger in this approach, that vital error
1137 messages can also be lost, thus preventing the cause of the
1138 failure of a make being found. We therefore need to be
1139 exceptionally careful to move cautiously, include plenty of tests,
1140 and give time for people to experiment/find problems in each stage
1141 before proceeding to the next stage.
1143 This will be done by starting from individual lilypond calls
1144 within lilypond-book, and slowly moving to @qq{larger} targets of
1145 the build system -- after the individual lilypond calls are are
1146 producing the appropriate amount of output and this is saved in
1147 the right place and we can automatically isolate parts of a
1148 failing build, we will work on lilypond-book in general, and only
1149 then will we look at the build system itself.
1151 @subheading Implementation notes
1153 There is an existing make variable QUIET_BUILD, which
1154 alter the amount of output being displayed
1156 http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/useful-make-variables}
1157 ). We are not planning on keeping this make variable.
1159 The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
1160 @code{V=x} option. Presumably this is done by increasing
1161 @code{x}? If we support this option, we should still write log
1162 files; we would simply print more of the info in those log files
1165 The command @code{tee} may be useful to write to a file and
1166 display to stdout (in the case of VERBOSE).
1169 @subsubheading Discussions
1172 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00378.html}
1173 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00703.html}
1178 @n ode GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
1179 @s ubsubsection GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
1181 still under discussion
1183 @subsubheading Discussions
1186 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00625.html}
1187 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg01026.html}
1194 @node Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
1195 @section Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
1201 Start: sortly after 2.14 comes out, which is currently estimated
1202 to happen in January 2011.
1205 Length: 6-12 months. We're not going to rush this.
1208 Goal: define an input which we commit to being
1209 machine-updateable for the forseeable future. Any future patches
1210 which change the syntax in a non-convert-ly-able format will be
1211 rejected. (subject to the limitations, below)
1212 Once this is finished, we will release lilypond 3.0.
1217 @subheading The Problem
1219 One of the biggest complaints people have with lilypond -- other
1220 than silly thing like "there's no gui" -- is the changing syntax.
1221 Now, inventing a language or standards is difficult. If you set
1222 it in stone too soon, you risk being stuck with decisions which
1223 may limit matters. If you keep on updating the syntax,
1224 interaction with older data (and other programs!) becomes complex.
1226 @subheading Scope and Limitations
1230 tweaks will not be included. Anything with \override, \set,
1231 \overrideProperty, \tweak, \revert, \unset... including even those
1232 command names themselves... is still fair game for NOT_SMART
1236 other than that, everything is on the table. Is it a problem to
1237 have the tagline inside \header? What should the default behavior
1238 of \include be? When we abolish \times, do we move to \tuplet 3:2
1239 or \tuplet 2/3 or what (for typical triplets in 4/4 time)?
1242 we need to get standards for command names. This will help users
1243 remember them, and reduce the options for future names (and
1244 potential renamings later on). \commandOn and \commandOff seem to
1245 work well (should we *always* have an Off command?), but what
1246 about the "command" part? Should it be \nounVerbOn, or
1247 \verbNounOn ? Or \verbNotesWithExtraInformationOn ?
1250 we need standards for the location of commands. Ligature
1251 brackets, I'm looking at you. (non-postfix notation must die!)
1254 this Grand Project doesn't affect whether we have a 2.16 or not.
1255 The main problem will be deciding what to do (with a bit of
1256 messiness anticipated for \tuplet); we should definitely release a
1257 2.16 before merging _any_ of these changes.
1260 we obviously can't /guarantee/ that we'll /never/ make any
1261 non-convert-ly changes in the basic format. But we *can*
1262 guarantee that such changes would force lilypond 4.0, and that we
1263 would only do so for overwhelmingly good reasons.
1267 @subheading Workflow
1271 We're going to have lots and lots of emails flying around. The
1272 vast majority won't really fit into either -devel or -user, so
1273 we'll use a list devoted to syntax issues.
1276 Once we have a serious proposal that gained general acceptance
1277 from the separate syntax mailing list, I'll bring it to -devel.
1278 We're not going to make any changes without discussing it on
1279 -devel, but if we're going to have huge threads about English
1280 grammar and silly ideas, and I don't want to clutter up -devel.
1281 Once whatever chaotic silliness on the syntax list is settled
1282 down, I'll bring the ideas to -devel.
1285 as with GDP, I'll moderate the discussion. Not as with mailist
1286 moderation, but rather by introducing issues at specific times.
1287 We don't want a free-for-all discussion of all parts of the syntax
1288 at once; nothing will get resolved.
1291 Whenever possible, we'll decide on policies at the highest level
1292 of abstraction. For example, consider \numericTimeSignature,
1293 \slurUp, \xNotesOn, \startTextSpan, and \verylongfermata. One of
1294 them starts with the name of the notation first (slur). One has
1295 an abbreviation (x instead of cross). One has the verb at the end
1296 (On), another has it at the beginning (start). The adjective can
1297 come at the beginning (numeric, x) or end (Up). Most are in
1298 camelCase, but one isn't (verylongfermata).
1301 Instead of arguing about each individual command, we'll decide on
1302 abstract questions. Should each command begin the notation-noun,
1303 or the verb? Should all commands be in camelCase, or should we
1304 make everything other than articulations in camelCase but make
1305 articulations all lower-case? Are abbreviations allowed?
1308 Once we've answered such fundamental questions, most of the syntax
1309 should fall into place pretty easily. There might be a few odd
1310 questions left ("is it a span, or a spanner?"), but those can be
1311 settled fairly quickly.
1315 @subheading Implementation
1317 Nothing until the project is finished, then we declare the next
1318 stable release (2.16.0 or 2.18.0 ?) to be the final 2.x version,
1319 release it, then apply all the GLISS syntax changes and start
1320 testing a beta for 3.0 a week or two later.
1322 @subheading Discussion
1324 Don't respond to any of the specifics yet. Yes, we all have our
1325 pet irritations (like "what's up with \paper and \layout?!").
1326 There will be plenty of time to discuss them once GLISS starts.
1328 That said, we have a list of specific items that people really
1329 wanted to have written down. See @ref{Specific GLISS issues}.
1332 * Specific GLISS issues::
1336 @node Specific GLISS issues
1337 @subsection Specific GLISS issues
1341 add regtests for every piece of syntax (not one-command-per-file,
1342 but making a few files which, between them, use every single piece
1343 of syntax.) This is a great test for convert-ly.
1346 should GLISS cover suggested conventions? (indentation,
1347 one-bar-per-line, etc -- the kind of stuff we list for the
1348 lilypond formatting in the docs ?)
1351 how much (if any) syntactic sugar should we add? i.e.
1353 \instrumentName #'foo
1355 \set Staff.instrumentName
1357 ? Carl: maybe yes, Neil: no. (for example, it fails for
1361 the values that are used as arguments to common used overrides.
1362 Sometimes they are a symbol (e.g. #'around), sometimes a
1363 predefined variable referring to a Scheme value or object (e.g.
1364 #LEFT, #all-visible ). The main trouble is that for novice users
1365 it is not clear when there should be an apostrophe and when not.
1368 When do we need -\command and when is it just \command ?
1372 Command-line options to the lilypond binary. -dfoo counts as a
1373 tweak; we won't be trying to pin those down.
1386 If would be pedagogically simpler to realize this difference if
1387 the syntax was separate if you define a context from scratch (as
1388 is the case with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext) or if it's defined by
1389 adding onto an existing context. For example, a syntax like
1393 % Copy the current settings of the Staff context:
1395 % do whatever additional settings
1397 %%% could be used to distinguish from
1399 % Take settings from a variable:
1401 % do whatever additional settings
1407 % Start from scratch:
1416 Capitalization of identifiers: \VoiceOne ?
1421 { music expression } * 4
1423 \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
1428 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00467.html}
1432 Personally, I find it easier to understand when there's a repeated
1433 8 in the half-bar position; it's much easier to see that you have
1438 %%% instead of one group of eight:
1443 trivially simple bar-lines:
1447 encourage, allow, or discourage, or disallow?
1450 indentation of \\ inside a @{@} construct.
1454 barline checks at the end of line should be preceded by at least 2
1455 spaces? barline checks should line up if possible (i.e. if you
1456 can use less than 4, 8, X empty spaces before a barline check to
1460 Why doesn't \transpose respect \relative mode?
1464 on \score vs. \new Score
1466 But in the light of a consistent syntax and semantic, I see no
1467 reason (from the users POV) to disallow it. After all, the real
1468 top-level context is a \book @{@}, isn't it, and I don't see a point
1469 in disallowing a \new Score construct just like \new Staff.
1471 From a syntactical POV, I see the following pros for \new Score:
1472 - You can write \with @{ ... @} for every other context but \Score,
1473 which (for consistency) should also work with \new Score.
1474 - When there's a \new Foo Bar, there's also a \context Foo Bar,
1475 which makes the same as a parallel instantiation of all Bar's.
1476 - [Quoting Rune from
1477 @uref{http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-devel@@gnu.org/msg14713.html}
1478 "I know that the \score-statement is a syntactical construct,
1479 but I think it would be nice to hide this fact from the users. I
1480 think we could make the use of score-block much more intuitive if
1481 changing the syntax to \new \Score and adding an implicit
1482 sequential-statement to the score."
1487 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
1488 about \new vs. \context.
1492 Let users add their own items to the parser? comment 11 on:
1493 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
1496 should engravers be pluralized (note_heads_engraver) or not
1497 (note_head_engraver) ?
1500 should we allow numbers in identifier names? Issue:
1501 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1670}
1504 should we officially allow accented characters? in general, how
1505 do we feel about utf-8 stuff?
1508 for the sake of completeness/simplicity, what about *disallowing*
1509 the "one-note" form of a music expression? i.e. only allowing
1512 \transpose c d { e1 }
1513 \transpose c d << e1 >>
1522 What should be the officially encouraged way of writing music for
1523 transposing instruments? Maybe it should be simplified?
1524 See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00130.html
1529 @node Unsorted policies
1530 @section Unsorted policies
1532 @subsubheading Language-specific mailing lists
1534 A translator can ask for an official lilypond-xy mailing list once
1535 they've finished all @qq{priority 1} translation items.
1537 @subsubheading Performing yearly copyright update (@qq{grand-replace})
1539 At the start of each year, copyright notices for all source files
1540 should be refreshed by running the following command from the top of
1547 Internally, this invokes the script @file{scripts/build/grand-replace.py},
1548 which performs a regular expression substitution for old-year -> new-year
1549 wherever it finds a valid copyright notice.
1551 Note that snapshots of third party files such as @file{texinfo.tex} should
1552 not be included in the automatic update; @file{grand-replace.py} ignores these
1553 files if they are listed in the variable @code{copied_files}.
1556 @subsubheading Push git access
1558 Git access is given out when a contributor has a significant
1559 record of patches being accepted without problems. If existing
1560 developers are tired of pushing patches for a contributor, we'll
1561 discuss giving them push access. Unsolicited requests from
1562 contributors for access will almost always be turned down.