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 @code{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 and Python libraries contained in @file{patches} in a
198 sensible place on your system; this can be done by appending
199 @file{patches/} full path to the @var{PATH} of the user that runs
203 Create a new git repository with
205 git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
207 This will create a directory called lilypond with the repo in it.
208 Make sure it's where you want it and name it lilypond-git
209 (assuming you want to follow the standard naming conventions).
212 Create environment variables @var{LILYPOND_GIT} and
213 @var{LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR}, see @ref{Environment variables}.
216 Run Patchy once to set up config files, answer @q{@code{n}} when it
217 asks for going on, unless the default config file happens to suit your
220 lilypond-patchy-staging.py
224 Edit @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to provide the location of
225 your local lilypond Git repository, working directories for your build
226 directory, your results directory, compiler options and notification
227 method. If you don't want to use email notification, then delete
228 everything after @code{smtp_command:}.
231 Ensure that your new user has git push access. Follow the
232 instructions in the CG at @ref{Commit access}. Do not set
233 password protection for the key --- if you do you will not be able
234 to run patchy unattended.
238 @subheading lilypond-patchy-staging.py
240 @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} is run with
242 python lilypond-patchy-staging.py
244 Not much appears to happen except you can see a lot of CPU gets used
245 if you open System Monitor. There's not much point running
246 @code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} unless there is something in
247 @code{staging} to be merged to @code{master}, however, if there's
248 nothing new in @code{staging} then the script won't waste resources by
251 The script fetches the current patches in staging and runs
252 @code{make}, @code{make test} and @code{make doc} to ensure that all of
253 these complete error-free. If you have set Patchy up to use email,
254 it emails its results to you. If you haven't, then you can view
255 them in a logfile. It also merges @code{staging} into @code{master}.
257 When you have run Patchy a few successful times with email sending,
258 you are ready for running it as a cron job. First, make sure you have
259 the following in @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to avoid
264 notify_non_action = no
267 Then, assuming Patchy run with user account @code{patchy}, write the
268 following to @file{$HOME/lilypond-patchy.cron}, adapting it as
269 necessary (the @code{/2} means @qq{run this every 2 hours}):
271 02 0-23/2 * * * /home/patchy/git/lilypond-extra/patches/lilypond-patchy-staging.py
274 @warning{@code{cron} will not inherit environment variables from
275 your main setup, so you must re-define any variables inside
276 @file{$HOME/lilypond-patchy.cron}. For instance, @var{LILYPOND_GIT}
277 may need to be defined if @var{git_repository_dir} is not correctly
278 set in @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config}.}
280 Finally, install the cron job (you may need superuser privileges for
283 crontab -u patchy /home/patchy/lilypond-patchy.cron
286 @subheading test-patches.py
287 @code{test-patches.py} prepares a regtest comparison for a human to
288 quickly glance at, to determine if the patch is ready for a review.
289 After looking at the comparison (or the lack of a comparison in the
290 case of problems), run @code{accept-patch.py} or
291 @code{reject-patch.py}.
293 Once a patch has gotten a "LGTM" from Patchy, it should be
294 reviewed by relevant developers, and if it passes this, it can be
295 considered for countdown (see @ref{Commits and patches}) and
296 pushing to staging (see @ref{Pushing to staging}).
299 @node Administrative mailing list
300 @section Administrative mailing list
302 A mailing list for administrative issues is maintained at
303 @code{lilypond-hackers@@gnu.org}.
305 This list is intended to be used for discussions that should be kept
306 private. Therefore, the archives are closed to the public.
308 Subscription to this list is limited to certain senior developers.
310 At the present time, the list is dormant.
312 Details about the criteria for membership, the types of discussion
313 to take place on the list, and other policies for the hackers list
314 will be finalized during the
315 @ref{Grand Organization Project (GOP)}.
319 @node Grand Organization Project (GOP)
320 @section Grand Organization Project (GOP)
326 Clarify the various development tasks by writing down the policies
327 and techniques and/or simplifying the tasks directly.
330 Get more people involved in development: specifically, find people
331 to do easy tasks to allow advanced developers to concentrate on
340 * Policy decisions (finished)::
344 @subsection Motivation
346 Most readers are probably familiar with the LilyPond Grand
347 Documentation Project, which ran from Aug 2007 to Aug 2008. This
348 project involved over 20 people and resulted in an almost complete
349 rewrite of the documentation. Most of those contributors were
350 normal users who decided to volunteer their time and effort to
351 improve lilypond for everybody. By any measure, it was a great
354 The Grand Organization Project aims to do the same thing with a
355 larger scope -- instead of focusing purely on documentation, the
356 project aims to improve all parts of LilyPond and its community.
357 Just as with GDP, the main goal is to encourage and train users to
358 become more involved.
360 If you have never contributed to an open-source project before --
361 especially if you use Windows or OSX and do not know how to
362 program or compile programs -- you may be wondering if there's
363 anything you can do. Rest assured that you @emph{can} help.
365 @subheading "Trickle-up" development
367 One of the reasons I'm organizing GOP is "trickle-up"
368 development. The idea is this: doing easy tasks frees up advanced
369 developers to do harder tasks. Don't ask "am I the @emph{best}
370 person for this job"; instead, ask "am I @emph{capable} of doing
371 this job, so that the current person can do stuff I @emph{can't}
374 For example, consider lilypond's poor handling of grace notes in
375 conjunction with clef and tempo changes. Fixing this will require
376 a fair amount of code rewriting, and would take an advanced
377 developer a few weeks to do. It's clearly beyond the scope of a
378 normal user, so we might as well sit back and do nothing, right?
380 No; we @emph{can} help, indirectly. Suppose that our normal user
381 starts answering more emails on lilypond-user. This in turn means
382 that documentation writers don't need to answer those emails, so
383 they can spend more time improving the docs. I've noticed that all
384 doc writers tackle harder and harder subjects, and when they start
385 writing docs on scheme programming and advanced tweaks, they start
386 contributing bug fixes to lilypond. Having people performing these
387 easy-to-moderate bug fixes frees up the advanced developers to
388 work on the really hard stuff... like rewriting the grace note
391 Having 1 more normal user answering emails on lilypond-user won't
392 have a dramatic @q{trickle-up} effect all by itself, of course. But if
393 we had 8 users volunteering to answer emails, 6 users starting to
394 write documentation, and 2 users editing LSR... well, that would
395 free up a lot of current bug-fixing-capable contributors to focus
396 on that, and we could start to make a real dent in the number of
397 bugs in lilypond. Quite apart from the eased workload, having that
398 many new helpers will provide a great moral boost!
401 @subsection Ongoing jobs
403 Although GOP is a short-term project, the main goal is to train
404 more people to handle ongoing jobs. The more people doing these
405 jobs, the lighter the work will be, and the more we can get done
408 Also, it would be nice if we had at least one "replacement" /
409 "understudy" for each role -- too many tasks are only being done
410 by one person, so if that person goes on vacation or gets very
411 busy with other matters, work in that area grinds to a halt.
413 @subheading Jobs for normal users
417 LilyPond is sometimes critized for not listening to users, but
418 whenever we ask for opinions about specific issues, we never get
419 enough feedback. This is somewhat aggravating.
420 We need a group of users to make a dedicated effort to test and
421 give feedback. If there's new documentation, read it. If there's
422 an experimental binary, download it and try compiling a score with
423 it. If we're trying to name a new command, think about it and give
426 @item lilypond-user support:
427 I think it would be nice if we had an official team of users
430 @item LilyPond Report:
431 Keeping a monthly newsletter running is a non-trivial task. A lot
432 of work is needed to organize it; it would be great if we could
433 split up the work. One person could write the Snippet of the
434 Month, another person could do Quotes of the Month, another person
435 could do interviews, etc.
438 Although GDP (the Grand Documentation Project) did great work,
439 there's still many tasks remaining.
442 Keeping the documentation translations is a monumental task; we
443 need all the help we can get!
447 @subheading Jobs for advanced users for developers
450 @item Git help for writers:
451 We often receive reports of typos and minor text updates to the
452 documentation. It would be great if somebody could create
453 properly-formatted patches for these corrections.
455 Technical requirements: ability to run @ref{LilyDev}.
458 LSR contains many useful examples of lilypond, but some snippets
459 are out of date and need updating. Other snippets need to be
460 advertized, and new snippets need to be sorted. We could use
461 another person to handle LSR.
463 Technical requirements: use of a web browser. LilyPond
464 requirements: you should be familiar with most of Notation
465 chapters 1 and 2 (or be willing to read the docs to find out).
467 @item Join the Frogs:
468 "Frogs" are a team of bug-fixers (because frogs eat bugs, and you
469 often find them in Ponds of Lilies) and new feature implementors.
471 Technical requirements: development environment (such as
472 @ref{LilyDev}), ability to read+write scheme and/or C++ code.
477 @node Policy decisions
478 @subsection Policy decisions
480 There are a number of policy decisions -- some of them fairly
481 important -- which we have been postponing for a few years. We
482 are now discussing them slowly and thoroughly; agenda and exact
483 proposals are online:
486 @uref{http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/index.html}
489 Below is a list of policies which are not @qq{on the agenda} yet.
491 Note that the presence of an item on this list does @emph{not}
492 mean that everybody thinks that something needs to be done.
493 Inclusion in this simply means that one developer thinks that we
494 should discuss it. We are not going to filter this list; if any
495 developer thinks we should discuss something, just add it to the
496 bottom of the list. (the list is unsorted)
498 As GOP progresses, items from this list will be put on the agenda
499 and removed from this list. I generally try to have one month's
500 discussion planned in advance, but I may shuffle things around to
501 respond to any immediate problems in the developer community.
503 There are some item(s) not displayed here; these are questions
504 that were posed to me privately, and I do not feel justified in
505 discussing them publicly without the consent of the person(s) that
506 brought them up. They will initially be discussed privately on the
507 lilypond-hackers mailing list -- but the first question will be
508 "do we absolutely need to do this privately", and if not, the
509 discussion will take place on lilypond-devel like the other items.
511 In most policy discussions in lilypond over the past few years,
512 the first half (or more) is wasted arguing on the basis of
513 incorrect or incomplete data; once all the relevant facts are
514 brought to light, the argument is generally resolved fairly
515 quickly. In order to keep the GOP discussions focused, each topic
516 will be introduced with a collection of relevant facts and/or
517 proposals. It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly which
518 facts will be relevant to the discussion -- but spending an hour
519 or two collecting information could still save hours of
522 @warning{The estimated time required for "prep work", and the
523 following discussion, has been added to each item. At the moment,
524 there is an estimated 30 hours of prep work and 140 hours of
528 @item @strong{Patch reviewing}:
529 At the time of this writing, we have 23 (known) patches waiting
530 for review. Some from main developers; some from new developers.
531 We desperately need more people helping with lilypond, but
532 ignoring patches is the best way to drive potential contributors
533 away. This is not good.
535 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
537 @item @strong{Official links to other organizations?}:
538 There's something called the "software freedom conservancy", and
539 in general, there's a bunch of "umbrella organizations". Joining
540 some of these might give us more visibility, possibly leading to
541 more users, more developers, maybe even financial grants or use in
544 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
546 @item @strong{Issue tracking with google code}:
547 We use the google issue tracker, but this means that we are
548 relying on a commercial entity for a large part of our
549 development. Would it be better (safer in the long run) to use the
550 savannah bug tracker?
552 (prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
554 @item @strong{Patch review tool}:
555 Reitveld is inconvenient in some respects: it requires a google
556 account, and there's no way to see all patches relating to
557 lilypond. Should we switch to something like gerritt?
558 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1184}
560 (prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
562 @item @strong{Clarity for sponsorships}:
563 We currently do not advertize bounties and sponsorships on the
564 webpage. How much advertising do we want, and what type?
565 Should we change the "structure" / "framework" for bounties?
567 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
569 @item @strong{code readability}:
570 "Our aim when producing source code for Lilypond in whatever
571 language is that it should be totally comprehensible to a
572 relatively inexperienced developer at the second reading."
575 - aids maintainability of code base
576 - "second reading" so newer developers can look up unfamiliar
578 - will help to keep things simple, even if the code is doing
579 complex stuff discourages "secret squirrel" coding, e.g. "how
580 much functionality can I squeeze into as few characters as
581 possible" "comments are for wimps"
582 - will aid not *discouraging* new developers to join the project
584 (prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
586 @item @strong{C++ vs. scheme}:
587 what should be in scheme, what should be in C++, what can/should
588 be ported from one to the other, etc. Questions of
589 maintainability, speed (especially considering guile 2.0), and the
590 amount of current material in either form, are important.
592 (prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
594 @item @strong{always make an issue number for patches}:
595 there is a proposal that we should always have a google code issue
596 number for every patch. This proposal is closely tied to our
597 choice of patch review tool; if we switch to a different tool (as
598 suggested in a different proposal), this proposal may become moot.
600 (prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
602 @item @strong{initalizer lists}:
603 shoudl we use initalizer lists for C++? AFAIK they make no
604 difference for built-in types, but there's some weird case where
605 it's more efficient for objects, or something.
607 Probably not worth making this a weekly thing on its own, but we
608 can probably wrap it up with some other code-related questions.
610 (prep: 15 minutes. discuss: 3 hours)
614 @node Policy decisions (finished)
615 @subsection Policy decisions (finished)
617 Here is a record the final decisions, along with links to the
621 * GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting::
622 * GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs::
623 * GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting::
624 * GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14::
625 * GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)::
626 * GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists::
627 * GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources::
628 * GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities::
629 * GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc::
632 @node GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
633 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
635 We will follow the indentation described in PEP-8.
636 @uref{http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/}
640 use 4 spaces per indentation level
643 never mix tabs and spaces (for indentation)
646 Code indented with a mixture of tabs and spaces should be
647 converted to using spaces exclusively
649 Once this is done, we should add @code{python -tt} to the build
650 system to avoid such errors in the future.
654 There should be absolutely no tab characters for indentation in
655 any @code{.py} file in lilypond git. All such files should be
656 converted to use spaces only.
658 @subsubheading Discussions
661 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00060.html}
662 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00084.html}
663 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00310.html}
664 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00574.html}
668 @node GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
669 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
671 Nothing much was decided. The list of responsibilities was
672 slightly altered; see the new one in @ref{Mentors}. We should
673 encourage more use of the Frogs mailing list. There's a list of
674 contributor-mentor pairs in:
677 @uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/people/mentors.txt}
680 That's pretty much it.
682 @subsubheading Discussions
685 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00311.html}
691 @node GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
692 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
694 Speaking academically, C++ code style is a "solved problem". Let's
695 pick one of the existing solutions, and let a computer deal with
696 this. Humans should not waste their time, energy, and creativity
697 manually adding tabs or spaces to source code.
699 We have modified @code{fixcc.py} to use astyle, along with extra
704 the final script will be run @strong{blindly} on the lilypond
705 source code. We will accept whatever formatting the final version
706 of this script produces, with no manual tweaking.
709 patches which have been run through this tool will not be rejected
710 for style reasons. Any code formatting @qq{desires} which are not
711 enforced by @code{fixcc.py} will not be considered grounds for
715 for now, this style will not be enforced. It is not cause for
716 concern if patches which do not follow the formatting done by
717 @code{fixcc.py} are pushed. From time to time, Graham will run
718 the formatter on the entire code base, and commit the resulting
721 In a few months, we will tighten up this policy item (with some
722 sort of automatic processing), but that is outside the scope of
723 this policy item and is a matter for later discussion.
726 after the proposal is accepted, we will leave some time for
727 existing patches to be accepted and pushed. The script was
728 run on the source code on @strong{2011 August 01}.
734 LilyPond is a GNU project, so it makes sense to follow the GNU
735 coding standards. These standards state:
738 We don’t think of these recommendations as requirements, because
739 it causes no problems for users if two different programs have
740 different formatting styles.
742 But whatever style you use, please use it consistently, since a
743 mixture of styles within one program tends to look ugly. If you
744 are contributing changes to an existing program, please follow the
745 style of that program.
748 (@uref{http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Formatting.html})
750 With that in mind, we do not think that we must blindly follow the
751 formatting given by the currrent version of Emacs.
753 @subheading Implementation notes
755 We can avoid some of the style change pollution in git history by
756 ignoring whitespaces changes:
762 @subsubheading Discussions
765 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00526.html}
766 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00796.html}
767 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00200.html}
768 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00525.html}
769 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
770 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
774 @node GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
775 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
779 A brief history of releases:
781 @multitable @columnfractions .2 .2 .3
782 @headitem date (YYYY-MM-DD) @tab version @tab comment
783 @item 2008-10-28 @tab 2.11.63 @tab nobody checking regtests
784 @item 2008-11-17 @tab 2.11.64
785 @item 2008-11-29 @tab 2.11.65
786 @item 2008-12-23 @tab 2.12.0
787 @item 2009-01-01 @tab @tab somewhere around here, Graham becomes
788 officially release manager, but Han-Wen still builds the actual
790 @item 2009-01-01 @tab 2.12.1
791 @item 2009-01-25 @tab 2.12.2
792 @item 2009-02-28 @tab 2.13.0
793 @item 2009-06-01 @tab 2.13.1 @tab note jump in time!
794 @item 2009-06-27 @tab 2.13.2 @tab first Graham release?
795 @item 2009-07-03 @tab 2.13.3
796 @item 2009-09-09 @tab @tab Graham arrives in Glasgow, gets a
797 powerful desktop computer, and begins serious work on GUB (sending
798 bug reports to Jan). It takes approximately 100 hours until GUB
799 is stable enough to make regular releases.
800 @item 2009-09-24 @tab 2.13.4
801 @item 2009-10-02 @tab 2.13.5
802 @item 2009-10-22 @tab 2.13.6
803 @item 2009-11-05 @tab 2.13.7
805 @item 2010-01-13 @tab 2.12.3
807 @item 2010-03-19 @tab 2.13.16 @tab Bug squad starts doing a few
808 regtest comparisons, but IIRC the effort dies out after a few
811 @item 2010-08-04 @tab 2.13.29 @tab Phil starts checking regtests (BLUE)
813 @item 2011-01-12 @tab 2.13.46 @tab release candidate 1 (GREEN)
815 @item 2011-05-30 @tab 2.13.63 @tab release candidate 7 (GREEN)
816 @item 2011-06-06 @tab 2.14.0
819 @c A graphical display of bugs:
821 @c @image{bugs-2.13-visualization,png}
822 @c @image{zoom-2.13-visualization,png}
824 @subheading Carl's analysis of the bugs
826 A @file{csv} spreadsheet is available.
829 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00852.html}
833 @uref{lilypond-issues-analysis.csv}
834 @uref{lilypond-issues-analysis-trim-duplicates.csv}
837 There 148 issues marked with Priority=Critical in the tracker.
839 I've done an analysis, and it looks to me like there was initially
840 a backlog of critical issues that weren't fixed, and little work
841 was being done to eliminate critical issues.
843 Somewhere about 2010-08-01, critical issues started to disappear,
844 but occasional new ones appeared.
846 There were a couple of major changes that introduced unanticipated
847 regressions (new spacing code, beam collision avoidance). These
848 produced more than the expected number of regressions.
850 It appears to me that we didn't really get serious about
851 eliminating critical bugs until about 2010-06-15 or so. After
852 that point, the number of critical bugs more-or-less steadily
853 decreased until we got to a release candidate.
855 Of particular interest, the first release candidate of 2.14 was
856 released on 2011-01-12. Over the next 10 days, about a dozen bugs
857 were reported and fixed. Release candidate 2 came out on
858 2011-02-09. No surge of bugs occurred with this release.
859 Candidate 3 came out on 2011-03-13; we got 2 bugs per week.
860 Candidate 4 came out on 2011-03-29; 2 new bugs. Candidate 6 came
861 out on 2011-04-07. We got a couple of bugs per week.
863 @subheading Notes, commentary, and opinions
866 Han-Wen: Overall, I think this cycle took too long
871 @subsubheading Discussions
874 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00797.html}
875 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00364.html}
880 @node GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
881 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
883 This proposal was too broad; after a month of discussion, Graham
884 withdrew the proposal. Portions of it will be introduced in later
887 @subsubheading Discussions
890 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00320.html}
891 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00527.html}
892 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00753.html}
893 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01042.html}
894 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00116.html}
895 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00310.html}
899 @node GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists
900 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing list
902 Potentially sensitive or private matters will be referred to
903 Graham. He will then decide who should discuss the matter on an
904 ad-hoc basis, and forward or CC them on future emails.
906 For emphasis, the project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and
907 Graham; those three will always be CC'd on any important
910 The lilypond-hackers mailing list will be removed.
914 There is some unhappy history about this idea in our development
918 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html}
919 @uref{http://news.lilynet.net/spip.php?article121}
920 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00076.html}
923 @subheading Other projects
925 The idea of private mailing lists is hardly uncommon in
926 open-source software. For example,
929 @uref{http://lwn.net/Articles/394660/} about debian-private
930 @uref{http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html} private@@
931 @uref{http://www.freebsd.org/administration.html#t-core}
932 @uref{http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/} board members pledge
933 to keep certain matters confidential
935 every security team of every linux distribution and OS
938 In fact, Karl Fogel's @qq{Producing Open Source Software}
939 explicitly suggests a private mailing list for some circumstances:
942 [on granting commit/push access to a contributor]
944 But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is
945 appropriate. You can't have votes about potential committers
946 posted to a public mailing list, because the candidate's feelings
947 (and reputation) could be hurt.
949 @uref{http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate}
952 @subheading Board of governers, voting, etc?
954 Many projects have an official board of directors, or a list of
955 @qq{core developers}, with set term limits and elections and
958 I don't think that we're that big. I think we're still small
959 enough, and there's enough trust and consensus decisions, that we
960 can avoid that. I would rather that we kept on going with
961 trust+consensus for at least the next 2-3 years, and spent more
962 time+energy on bug fixes and new features instead of
963 administrative stuff.
965 Project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and Graham.
967 @subsubheading Discussions
970 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00783.html}
971 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01004.html}
972 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00117.html}
976 @node GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
977 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
979 We shall treat developers (and contributors) as
980 @strong{Independent volunteers}: each person does whatever they
981 want, whenever they want. We have busy careers and lives; we make
982 no expectations of action from anybody (with the exception of the
983 6 people in @qq{Meister} positions).
985 @subsubheading Discussions
988 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01092.html}
989 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00087.html}
990 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00497.html}
994 @node GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
995 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
997 We will delete the @qq{priority} field of the issue tracker
998 altogether. The @qq{type} system will be tweaked.
1005 a reproducible failure to build either @code{make} or @code{make
1006 doc}, from an empty build tree, in a first run, if
1007 @code{configure} does not report any errors.
1010 any program behaviour which is @strong{unintentionally} worse than
1011 the previous stable version or the current development version.
1012 Developers may always use the @qq{this is intentional}, or even
1013 the @qq{this is an unavoidable effect of an improvement in another
1014 area}, reason to move this to a different type.
1017 anything which stops contributors from helping out (e.g.
1018 lily-git.tcl not working, source tree(s) not being available,
1019 LilyDev being unable to compile git master, inaccurate
1020 instructions in the Contributor's Guide 2 Quick start).
1022 To limit this scope of this point, we will assume that the
1023 contributor is using the latest LilyDev and has read the relevant
1024 part(s) of the Contributor's Guide. Problems in other chapters of
1025 the CG are not sufficient to qualify as Type-Critical.
1029 @subsubheading More new/changed types and labels
1031 Unless otherwise specified, the current types and labels will
1032 continue to be used. The new types introduced by this proposal
1038 Type-crash: any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks
1039 like or which options are given. Disclaimer: this might not be
1040 possible in some cases, for example certain guile programs (we
1041 certainly can't predict if a piece of scheme will ever stop
1042 running, i.e. the halting problem), or if we rely on other
1043 programs (i.e. ghostscript). If there are any such cases that
1044 make segfault-prevention impossible, we will document those
1045 exceptions (and the issue will remain as a "crash" instead of
1046 "documentation" until the warning has been pushed).
1049 Type-maintainability: anything which makes it difficult for
1050 serious contributors to help out (e.g. difficult to find the
1051 relevant source tree(s), confusing policies, problems with
1052 automatic indentation tools, etc).
1055 Type-ugly: replaces Type-collision, and it will include things
1056 like bad slurs in addition to actual collision.
1060 A new label will be added:
1064 (label) Needs_evidence: it is not clear what the correct output
1065 should look like. We need scans, references, examples, etc.
1069 @subheading Reminding users about stars
1071 We can remind users that they can @qq{star} an issue to indicate
1072 that they care about it. Since we resolved to treat developers as
1073 independent volunteers, there is no expectation that anybody will
1074 look at those stars, but if any developer want to organize their
1075 work schedule according to the stars, they are welcome to do so.
1077 @subsubheading Discussions
1080 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00019.html}
1081 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00277.html}
1082 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00413.html}
1083 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00624.html}
1088 @node GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
1089 @subsubsection GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
1091 If there are build problems, then it should be easier to find out
1092 why it's failing. This will be achieved with log files, as well
1093 as possibly including scripts which automatically display portions
1094 of those log files for a failing build.
1096 We will also add targets for building a specific manual (for
1097 quick+easy checking of doc work), as well as for building all
1098 documentation in a specific language (either English or a
1099 translated language).
1101 When you run @code{make doc},
1106 All output will be saved to various log files, with the exception
1107 of output directly from @code{make(1)}.
1109 Note that @code{make(1)} refers to a specific executable file on
1110 unix computers, and is not a general term for the build system.
1113 By default, no other output will be displayed on the console, with
1114 one exception: if a build fails, we might display some portion(s)
1115 of log file(s) which give useful clues about the reason for the
1118 The user may optionally request additional output to be printed;
1119 this is controlled with the @code{VERBOSE=x} flag. In such cases,
1120 all output will still be written to log files; the console output
1121 is strictly additional to the log files.
1124 Logfiles from calling lilypond (as part of lilypond-book) will go in
1126 @file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/out/lybook-db/12/lily-123456.log} file. All
1127 other logfiles will go in the @file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/logfiles/}
1130 A single @code{make doc} will therefore result in hundreds of log
1131 files. Log files produced from individual lilypond runs are not
1132 under our control; apart from that, I anticipate having one or two
1133 dozen log files. As long as it is clear which log file is
1134 associated with which operation(s), I think this is entirely
1135 appropriate. The precise implementation will be discussed for
1136 specific patches as they appear.
1139 Both stderr and stdout will be saved in @code{*.log}. The order
1140 of lines from these streams should be preserved.
1143 There will be no additional @qq{progress messages} during the
1144 build process. If you run @code{make --silent}, a non-failing
1145 build should print absolutely nothing to the screen.
1148 Assuming that the loglevels patch is accepted, lilypond (inside
1149 lilypond-book) will be run with --loglevel=WARN.
1150 @uref{http://codereview.appspot.com/4822055/}
1153 Ideally, a failing build should provide hints about the reason why
1154 it failed, or at least hints about which log file(s) to examine.
1158 If this proposal is accepted, none of these policies will be
1159 assumed to apply to any other aspect of the build system.
1160 Policies for any other aspect of the build system will be
1161 discussed in separate proposals.
1163 @subheading Don't cause more build problems
1165 However, there is a danger in this approach, that vital error
1166 messages can also be lost, thus preventing the cause of the
1167 failure of a make being found. We therefore need to be
1168 exceptionally careful to move cautiously, include plenty of tests,
1169 and give time for people to experiment/find problems in each stage
1170 before proceeding to the next stage.
1172 This will be done by starting from individual lilypond calls
1173 within lilypond-book, and slowly moving to @qq{larger} targets of
1174 the build system -- after the individual lilypond calls are are
1175 producing the appropriate amount of output and this is saved in
1176 the right place and we can automatically isolate parts of a
1177 failing build, we will work on lilypond-book in general, and only
1178 then will we look at the build system itself.
1180 @subheading Implementation notes
1182 There is an existing make variable QUIET_BUILD, which
1183 alter the amount of output being displayed
1185 http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/useful-make-variables}
1186 ). We are not planning on keeping this make variable.
1188 The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
1189 @code{V=x} option. Presumably this is done by increasing
1190 @code{x}? If we support this option, we should still write log
1191 files; we would simply print more of the info in those log files
1194 The command @code{tee} may be useful to write to a file and
1195 display to stdout (in the case of VERBOSE).
1198 @subsubheading Discussions
1201 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00378.html}
1202 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00703.html}
1207 @n ode GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
1208 @s ubsubsection GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
1210 still under discussion
1212 @subsubheading Discussions
1215 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00625.html}
1216 @uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg01026.html}
1223 @node Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
1224 @section Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
1230 Start: sortly after 2.14 comes out, which is currently estimated
1231 to happen in January 2011.
1234 Length: 6-12 months. We're not going to rush this.
1237 Goal: define an input which we commit to being
1238 machine-updateable for the forseeable future. Any future patches
1239 which change the syntax in a non-convert-ly-able format will be
1240 rejected. (subject to the limitations, below)
1241 Once this is finished, we will release lilypond 3.0.
1246 @subheading The Problem
1248 One of the biggest complaints people have with lilypond -- other
1249 than silly thing like "there's no gui" -- is the changing syntax.
1250 Now, inventing a language or standards is difficult. If you set
1251 it in stone too soon, you risk being stuck with decisions which
1252 may limit matters. If you keep on updating the syntax,
1253 interaction with older data (and other programs!) becomes complex.
1255 @subheading Scope and Limitations
1259 tweaks will not be included. Anything with \override, \set,
1260 \overrideProperty, \tweak, \revert, \unset... including even those
1261 command names themselves... is still fair game for NOT_SMART
1265 other than that, everything is on the table. Is it a problem to
1266 have the tagline inside \header? What should the default behavior
1267 of \include be? When we abolish \times, do we move to \tuplet 3:2
1268 or \tuplet 2/3 or what (for typical triplets in 4/4 time)?
1271 we need to get standards for command names. This will help users
1272 remember them, and reduce the options for future names (and
1273 potential renamings later on). \commandOn and \commandOff seem to
1274 work well (should we *always* have an Off command?), but what
1275 about the "command" part? Should it be \nounVerbOn, or
1276 \verbNounOn ? Or \verbNotesWithExtraInformationOn ?
1279 we need standards for the location of commands. Ligature
1280 brackets, I'm looking at you. (non-postfix notation must die!)
1283 this Grand Project doesn't affect whether we have a 2.16 or not.
1284 The main problem will be deciding what to do (with a bit of
1285 messiness anticipated for \tuplet); we should definitely release a
1286 2.16 before merging _any_ of these changes.
1289 we obviously can't /guarantee/ that we'll /never/ make any
1290 non-convert-ly changes in the basic format. But we *can*
1291 guarantee that such changes would force lilypond 4.0, and that we
1292 would only do so for overwhelmingly good reasons.
1296 @subheading Workflow
1300 We're going to have lots and lots of emails flying around. The
1301 vast majority won't really fit into either -devel or -user, so
1302 we'll use a list devoted to syntax issues.
1305 Once we have a serious proposal that gained general acceptance
1306 from the separate syntax mailing list, I'll bring it to -devel.
1307 We're not going to make any changes without discussing it on
1308 -devel, but if we're going to have huge threads about English
1309 grammar and silly ideas, and I don't want to clutter up -devel.
1310 Once whatever chaotic silliness on the syntax list is settled
1311 down, I'll bring the ideas to -devel.
1314 as with GDP, I'll moderate the discussion. Not as with mailist
1315 moderation, but rather by introducing issues at specific times.
1316 We don't want a free-for-all discussion of all parts of the syntax
1317 at once; nothing will get resolved.
1320 Whenever possible, we'll decide on policies at the highest level
1321 of abstraction. For example, consider \numericTimeSignature,
1322 \slurUp, \xNotesOn, \startTextSpan, and \verylongfermata. One of
1323 them starts with the name of the notation first (slur). One has
1324 an abbreviation (x instead of cross). One has the verb at the end
1325 (On), another has it at the beginning (start). The adjective can
1326 come at the beginning (numeric, x) or end (Up). Most are in
1327 camelCase, but one isn't (verylongfermata).
1330 Instead of arguing about each individual command, we'll decide on
1331 abstract questions. Should each command begin the notation-noun,
1332 or the verb? Should all commands be in camelCase, or should we
1333 make everything other than articulations in camelCase but make
1334 articulations all lower-case? Are abbreviations allowed?
1337 Once we've answered such fundamental questions, most of the syntax
1338 should fall into place pretty easily. There might be a few odd
1339 questions left ("is it a span, or a spanner?"), but those can be
1340 settled fairly quickly.
1344 @subheading Implementation
1346 Nothing until the project is finished, then we declare the next
1347 stable release (2.16.0 or 2.18.0 ?) to be the final 2.x version,
1348 release it, then apply all the GLISS syntax changes and start
1349 testing a beta for 3.0 a week or two later.
1351 @subheading Discussion
1353 Don't respond to any of the specifics yet. Yes, we all have our
1354 pet irritations (like "what's up with \paper and \layout?!").
1355 There will be plenty of time to discuss them once GLISS starts.
1357 That said, we have a list of specific items that people really
1358 wanted to have written down. See @ref{Specific GLISS issues}.
1361 * Specific GLISS issues::
1365 @node Specific GLISS issues
1366 @subsection Specific GLISS issues
1370 add regtests for every piece of syntax (not one-command-per-file,
1371 but making a few files which, between them, use every single piece
1372 of syntax.) This is a great test for convert-ly.
1375 should GLISS cover suggested conventions? (indentation,
1376 one-bar-per-line, etc -- the kind of stuff we list for the
1377 lilypond formatting in the docs ?)
1380 how much (if any) syntactic sugar should we add? i.e.
1382 \instrumentName #'foo
1384 \set Staff.instrumentName
1386 ? Carl: maybe yes, Neil: no. (for example, it fails for
1390 the values that are used as arguments to common used overrides.
1391 Sometimes they are a symbol (e.g. #'around), sometimes a
1392 predefined variable referring to a Scheme value or object (e.g.
1393 #LEFT, #all-visible ). The main trouble is that for novice users
1394 it is not clear when there should be an apostrophe and when not.
1397 When do we need -\command and when is it just \command ?
1401 Command-line options to the lilypond binary. -dfoo counts as a
1402 tweak; we won't be trying to pin those down.
1415 If would be pedagogically simpler to realize this difference if
1416 the syntax was separate if you define a context from scratch (as
1417 is the case with \RemoveEmptyStaffContext) or if it's defined by
1418 adding onto an existing context. For example, a syntax like
1422 % Copy the current settings of the Staff context:
1424 % do whatever additional settings
1426 %%% could be used to distinguish from
1428 % Take settings from a variable:
1430 % do whatever additional settings
1436 % Start from scratch:
1445 Capitalization of identifiers: \VoiceOne ?
1450 { music expression } * 4
1452 \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
1457 @uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00467.html}
1461 Personally, I find it easier to understand when there's a repeated
1462 8 in the half-bar position; it's much easier to see that you have
1467 %%% instead of one group of eight:
1472 trivially simple bar-lines:
1476 encourage, allow, or discourage, or disallow?
1479 indentation of \\ inside a @{@} construct.
1483 barline checks at the end of line should be preceded by at least 2
1484 spaces? barline checks should line up if possible (i.e. if you
1485 can use less than 4, 8, X empty spaces before a barline check to
1489 Why doesn't \transpose respect \relative mode?
1493 on \score vs. \new Score
1495 But in the light of a consistent syntax and semantic, I see no
1496 reason (from the users POV) to disallow it. After all, the real
1497 top-level context is a \book @{@}, isn't it, and I don't see a point
1498 in disallowing a \new Score construct just like \new Staff.
1500 From a syntactical POV, I see the following pros for \new Score:
1501 - You can write \with @{ ... @} for every other context but \Score,
1502 which (for consistency) should also work with \new Score.
1503 - When there's a \new Foo Bar, there's also a \context Foo Bar,
1504 which makes the same as a parallel instantiation of all Bar's.
1505 - [Quoting Rune from
1506 @uref{http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-devel@@gnu.org/msg14713.html}
1507 "I know that the \score-statement is a syntactical construct,
1508 but I think it would be nice to hide this fact from the users. I
1509 think we could make the use of score-block much more intuitive if
1510 changing the syntax to \new \Score and adding an implicit
1511 sequential-statement to the score."
1516 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
1517 about \new vs. \context.
1521 Let users add their own items to the parser? comment 11 on:
1522 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
1525 should engravers be pluralized (note_heads_engraver) or not
1526 (note_head_engraver) ?
1529 should we allow numbers in identifier names? Issue:
1530 @uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1670}
1533 should we officially allow accented characters? in general, how
1534 do we feel about utf-8 stuff?
1537 for the sake of completeness/simplicity, what about *disallowing*
1538 the "one-note" form of a music expression? i.e. only allowing
1541 \transpose c d { e1 }
1542 \transpose c d << e1 >>
1551 What should be the officially encouraged way of writing music for
1552 transposing instruments? Maybe it should be simplified?
1553 See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00130.html
1558 @node Unsorted policies
1559 @section Unsorted policies
1561 @subsubheading Language-specific mailing lists
1563 A translator can ask for an official lilypond-xy mailing list once
1564 they've finished all @qq{priority 1} translation items.
1566 @subsubheading Performing yearly copyright update (@qq{grand-replace})
1568 At the start of each year, copyright notices for all source files
1569 should be refreshed by running the following command from the top of
1576 Internally, this invokes the script @file{scripts/build/grand-replace.py},
1577 which performs a regular expression substitution for old-year -> new-year
1578 wherever it finds a valid copyright notice.
1580 Note that snapshots of third party files such as @file{texinfo.tex} should
1581 not be included in the automatic update; @file{grand-replace.py} ignores these
1582 files if they are listed in the variable @code{copied_files}.
1585 @subsubheading Push git access
1587 Git access is given out when a contributor has a significant
1588 record of patches being accepted without problems. If existing
1589 developers are tired of pushing patches for a contributor, we'll
1590 discuss giving them push access. Unsolicited requests from
1591 contributors for access will almost always be turned down.