@menu
* Meta-policy for this document::
+* Environment variables::
* Meisters::
+* Patchy::
* Administrative mailing list::
* Grand Organization Project (GOP)::
* Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)::
The Contributor's Guide as a whole is still a work in progress,
but some chapters are much more complete than others. Chapters
which are @qq{almost finished} should not have major changes
-without a discussion on @code{-devel}; in other chapters, a
+without a discussion on @w{@code{-devel}}; in other chapters, a
disorganized @qq{wiki-style dump} of information is encouraged.
Do not change (other than spelling mistakes) without discussion:
@end itemize
+@node Environment variables
+@section Environment variables
+
+Some maintenance scripts and instructions in this guide rely on
+the following environment variables. They should be predefined in
+LilyDev distribution (see @ref{LilyDev}); if you set up your own
+development environment, you can set them by appending these settings to
+your @file{~/.bashrc} (or whatever defines your default environment
+variables for the user account for LilyPond development), then logging
+out and in (adapt directories to your setup):
+
+@example
+LILYPOND_GIT=~/lilypond-git
+export LILYPOND_GIT
+LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR=~/lilypond-git/build
+export LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR
+@end example
+
+The standard build and install procedure (with @code{autogen.sh},
+@code{configure}, @code{make}, @code{make install}, @code{make doc}
+@dots{}) does not rely on them.
+
+In addition, for working on the website, @code{LILYPOND_WEB_MEDIA_GIT}
+should be set to the repository lilypond-extra, see
+@ref{lilypond-extra}.
+
@node Meisters
@section Meisters
on which part of their job, checks to make sure that everything is
running smoothly, and has final say on our policy for Issues.
-Currently: Phil
+Currently: Colin H
@item
Doc Meister: trains new doc editors/writers, organizes who works
@item
Frog Meister: is responsible for code patches from (relatively)
inexperienced contributors. Keeps track of patches, does initial
-reviewing of those patches, sends them to @code{-devel} when
+reviewing of those patches, sends them to @w{@code{-devel}} when
they've had some initial review on the Frog list, pesters the
-@code{-devel} community into actually reviewing said patches, and
+@w{@code{-devel}} community into actually reviewing said patches, and
finally pushes the patches once they're accepted. This person is
@emph{not} responsible for training new programmers, because that
-would be far too much work -- he job is @qq{only} to guide
+would be far too much work -- his/her job is @qq{only} to guide
completed patches through our process.
-Currently: Carl
+Currently: Mike Solomon
+
+@end itemize
+
+@node Patchy
+@section Patchy
+
+@subheading Introduction
+
+Patchy is a set of Python scripts to automate two administrative
+tasks:
+
+@itemize
+@item
+@code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py}: checks that new commits in
+@code{staging} can compile the regtests and documentation before
+merging @code{staging} into @code{master}.
+
+(completely automatic)
+
+@item
+@code{test-patches.py}: checks that patches apply to Git @code{master},
+compile, and lets a human check that there are no big unintended
+changes to the regtests.
+
+(requires some human input)
@end itemize
+@subheading Installing Patchy
+
+To install Patchy, you should do the following:
+
+@enumerate
+@item
+Create a new user on your box to run Patchy; this is a security
+step for your own protection. It is recommended that this should
+not be an administrator. New users are created from System;
+Administration; Users and Groups.
+
+@item
+Get the Patchy scripts from
+@example
+@uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/}
+@end example
+Patchy is in the @file{patches/} directory.
+
+@item
+Put the scripts and Python libraries contained in @file{patches} in a
+sensible place on your system; this can be done by appending
+@file{patches/} full path to the @var{PATH} of the user that runs
+Patchy.
+
+@item
+Create a new git repository with
+@example
+git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
+@end example
+This will create a directory called lilypond with the repo in it.
+Make sure it's where you want it and name it lilypond-git
+(assuming you want to follow the standard naming conventions).
+
+@item
+Create environment variables @var{LILYPOND_GIT} and
+@var{LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR}, see @ref{Environment variables}.
+
+@item
+Run Patchy once to set up config files, answer @q{@code{n}} when it
+asks for going on, unless the default config file happens to suit your
+setup:
+@example
+lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+@end example
+
+@item
+Edit @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to provide the location of
+your local lilypond Git repository, working directories for your build
+directory, your results directory, compiler options and notification
+method. If you don't want to use email notification, then delete
+everything after @code{smtp_command:}.
+
+@item
+Ensure that your new user has git push access. Follow the
+instructions in the CG at @ref{Commit access}. Do not set
+password protection for the key --- if you do you will not be able
+to run patchy unattended.
+
+@end enumerate
+
+@subheading lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+
+@code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} is run with
+@example
+python lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+@end example
+Not much appears to happen except you can see a lot of CPU gets used
+if you open System Monitor. There's not much point running
+@code{lilypond-patchy-staging.py} unless there is something in
+@code{staging} to be merged to @code{master}, however, if there's
+nothing new in @code{staging} then the script won't waste resources by
+compiling anything.
+
+The script fetches the current patches in staging and runs
+@code{make}, @code{make test} and @code{make doc} to ensure that all of
+these complete error-free. If you have set Patchy up to use email,
+it emails its results to you. If you haven't, then you can view
+them in a logfile. It also merges @code{staging} into @code{master}.
+
+@warning{in case the build fails, do not try to push fixes on top of
+staging branch, for details see @ref{Pushing to staging}.}
+
+When you have run Patchy a few successful times with email sending,
+you are ready for running it as a cron job. First, make sure you have
+the following in @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config} to avoid
+email flood:
+
+@example
+[notification]
+notify_non_action = no
+@end example
+
+Then, assuming Patchy run with user account @code{patchy}, write the
+following to @file{$HOME/lilypond-patchy.cron}, adapting it as
+necessary (the @code{/2} means @qq{run this every 2 hours}):
+@example
+02 0-23/2 * * * /home/patchy/git/lilypond-extra/patches/lilypond-patchy-staging.py
+@end example
+
+@warning{@code{cron} will not inherit environment variables from
+your main setup, so you must re-define any variables inside
+@file{$HOME/lilypond-patchy.cron}. For instance, @var{LILYPOND_GIT}
+may need to be defined if @var{git_repository_dir} is not correctly
+set in @file{$HOME/.lilypond-patchy-config}.}
+
+Finally, install the cron job (you may need superuser privileges for
+this):
+@example
+crontab -u patchy /home/patchy/lilypond-patchy.cron
+@end example
+
+@subheading test-patches.py
+@code{test-patches.py} prepares a regtest comparison for a human to
+quickly glance at, to determine if the patch is ready for a review.
+After looking at the comparison (or the lack of a comparison in the
+case of problems), run @code{accept-patch.py} or
+@code{reject-patch.py}.
+
+Once a patch has gotten a "LGTM" from Patchy, it should be
+reviewed by relevant developers, and if it passes this, it can be
+considered for countdown (see @ref{Commits and patches}) and
+pushing to staging (see @ref{Pushing to staging}).
+
+
@node Administrative mailing list
@section Administrative mailing list
-An mailing list for administrative issues is maintained at
+A mailing list for administrative issues is maintained at
@code{lilypond-hackers@@gnu.org}.
This list is intended to be used for discussions that should be kept
@itemize
@item
-Clarify the various development tasks by writing down the polices
+Clarify the various development tasks by writing down the policies
and techniques and/or simplifying the tasks directly.
@item
* Motivation::
* Ongoing jobs::
* Policy decisions::
+* Policy decisions (finished)::
@end menu
@node Motivation
code.
Having 1 more normal user answering emails on lilypond-user won't
-have a dramatic trick-up affect all by himself, of course. But if
+have a dramatic @q{trickle-up} effect all by itself, of course. But if
we had 8 users volunteering to answer emails, 6 users starting to
write documentation, and 2 users editing LSR... well, that would
free up a lot of current bug-fixing-capable contributors to focus
Although GOP is a short-term project, the main goal is to train
more people to handle ongoing jobs. The more people doing these
-jobs, the ligher the work will be, and the more we can get done
+jobs, the lighter the work will be, and the more we can get done
with lilypond!
Also, it would be nice if we had at least one "replacement" /
documentation. It would be great if somebody could create
properly-formatted patches for these corrections.
-Technical requirements: ability to run @ref{Lilydev}.
+Technical requirements: ability to run @ref{LilyDev}.
@item LSR editor:
LSR contains many useful examples of lilypond, but some snippets
often find them in Ponds of Lilies) and new feature implementors.
Technical requirements: development environment (such as
-@ref{Lilydev}), ability to read+write scheme and/or C++ code.
+@ref{LilyDev}), ability to read+write scheme and/or C++ code.
@end itemize
@subsection Policy decisions
There are a number of policy decisions -- some of them fairly
-important -- which we have been postponing for a few years. When
-GOP begins, we will start discussing them.
+important -- which we have been postponing for a few years. We
+are now discussing them slowly and thoroughly; agenda and exact
+proposals are online:
-@warning{The fact that we are not arguing about them right now is
-not, I repeat @strong{not}, an indication that we do not feel that
-these issues are not important. It is simply that if we began
-talking about them now, it would postpone the 2.14 release for a
-few months.}
+@example
+@uref{http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/index.html}
+@end example
+
+Below is a list of policies which are not @qq{on the agenda} yet.
Note that the presence of an item on this list does @emph{not}
mean that everybody thinks that something needs to be done.
developer thinks we should discuss something, just add it to the
bottom of the list. (the list is unsorted)
-Once GOP starts, the list will be sorted into a rough agenda. We
-will probably introduce one topic each week -- yes, it will
-therefore take months to get through everything, but we must
-balance productive work vs. policy administration. If we find
-that we settle questions faster (or slower) than predicted, we
-will of course change the speed of new topic introductions.
+As GOP progresses, items from this list will be put on the agenda
+and removed from this list. I generally try to have one month's
+discussion planned in advance, but I may shuffle things around to
+respond to any immediate problems in the developer community.
There are some item(s) not displayed here; these are questions
that were posed to me privately, and I do not feel justified in
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-@item @strong{Lessons from the 2.14 release; future release policy}:
-What went well; what went badly? (how) should we change any
-policies pertaining to releases? Should an undocumented new
-feature count as release-blocking?
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 15 hours)
-
-@item @strong{lilypond-hackers mailing list}:
-Should we have a private mailing list for senior developers? If
-so, who should be on it?
-
-(prep: 2 hours+3 weeks. discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Hackers B}:
-
-
-@item @strong{Code style}:
-New contributors sometimes struggle to follow our indentation and
-code style -- this is especially difficult when parts of our
-existing source code doesn't have a consistent style. This is
-problematic... we want new contributors to be struggling with the
-lilypond architecture, not playing games in their text editors!
-(ok, we don't actually want them to be struggling with lilypond
-internals... but given the current state of the CG, it's
-understandable, and at any rate it's still better than struggling
-with code style)
-Speaking academically, C++ code style is a "solved problem". Let's
-pick one of the existing solutions (probably either astyle,
-uncrustify, or emacs), and let a computer deal with this.
-
-(prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Git repository(s)}:
-We currently have a web/ branch in our main repo; this seems
-misleading to new developers. More generally, should we have
-branches that aren't related to the master? i.e. should we
-restrict a git branch to code which is an actual "branch" of
-development? Also, some of our code (notably the windows and osx
-lilypad) isn't in a git repository at all.
-We can add new repositories very easily; should make repositories
-like
-@example
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/gub.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/lilypad.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/misc.git
-@end example
-? More information here:
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=980}
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Roadmap of future development}:
-Many projects have a roadmap of planned (or desired) future work.
-Should we use one? If so, what should go on it, bearing in mind
-our volunteer status? Is there any way of having a roadmap that
-isn't vaporware?
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
-
@item @strong{Official links to other organizations?}:
There's something called the "software freedom conservancy", and
in general, there's a bunch of "umbrella organizations". Joining
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
-@item @strong{Mailing lists}:
-We currently have a mix of official GNU mailing lists and lilynet
-lists. Is there a strong rationale for having separate mailing
-list servers? Why not pick one place, and put all our lists there?
-(or at least, all "permanent" lists?)
-
-(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
-
@item @strong{Issue tracking with google code}:
We use the google issue tracker, but this means that we are
relying on a commercial entity for a large part of our
(prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
-@item @strong{Subdomains of *.lilypond.org}:
-Unless Jan has a really weird DNS hosting setup, there are no
-technical barriers to having names like lsr.lilypond.org,
-frog.lilypond.org, or news.lilypond.org. Is this something that we
-want to do?
-
-(prep: 1 hours+2 weeks. discuss: 5 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Authorship in source files}:
-Our documentation currently does not attempt to track individual
-authors of each file, while our source code makes a confused and
-jumbled attempt to track this. A number of guidelines for F/OSS
-projects explicitly recommends _not_ tracking this in individual
-files, since the code repository will track that for you.
-
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
-
@item @strong{Clarity for sponsorships}:
We currently do not advertize bounties and sponsorships on the
webpage. How much advertising do we want, and what type?
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-@item @strong{Separate branches for active development}:
-it might be good to have @emph{everybody} working on separate
-branches. This complicates the git setup, but with sufficient
-logic in lily-git.tcl, we can probably make it transparent to
-newbies. However, we'd need a reliable person to handle all the
-required merging and stuff.
+@item @strong{code readability}:
+"Our aim when producing source code for Lilypond in whatever
+language is that it should be totally comprehensible to a
+relatively inexperienced developer at the second reading."
+
+Rationale:
+- aids maintainability of code base
+- "second reading" so newer developers can look up unfamiliar
+ stuff
+- will help to keep things simple, even if the code is doing
+ complex stuff discourages "secret squirrel" coding, e.g. "how
+ much functionality can I squeeze into as few characters as
+ possible" "comments are for wimps"
+- will aid not *discouraging* new developers to join the project
(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 10 hours)
-@item @strong{Precise definition of Critical issues}:
-at the moment, a stable release is entirely dependent on the
-number of Critical issues, but there's some questions about
-precisely what a "Critical issue" should be. We should clarify
-this, in conjunction with a general discussion about how often we
-want to have stable releases, how permissive we want to be about
-patches, etc etc.
+@item @strong{C++ vs. scheme}:
+what should be in scheme, what should be in C++, what can/should
+be ported from one to the other, etc. Questions of
+maintainability, speed (especially considering guile 2.0), and the
+amount of current material in either form, are important.
+
+(prep: 5 hours. discuss: 15 hours)
+
+@item @strong{always make an issue number for patches}:
+there is a proposal that we should always have a google code issue
+number for every patch. This proposal is closely tied to our
+choice of patch review tool; if we switch to a different tool (as
+suggested in a different proposal), this proposal may become moot.
(prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours)
-@item @strong{When do we add regtests?}:
-There is a discrepancy between our stated policy on adding
-regtests, and our actual practice in handling bugs and patches.
-Clarify.
+@item @strong{initalizer lists}:
+shoudl we use initalizer lists for C++? AFAIK they make no
+difference for built-in types, but there's some weird case where
+it's more efficient for objects, or something.
-There is also a wider question how to organize the regtests, such
-as where to put interesting-console-output regtests, including
-stuff like lilypond-book and midi2ly in a sensible manner, and
-possibly including regtests for currently-broken functionality.
+Probably not worth making this a weekly thing on its own, but we
+can probably wrap it up with some other code-related questions.
-(prep: 2 hours. discuss: 5 hours)
+(prep: 15 minutes. discuss: 3 hours)
+
+@end itemize
+
+@node Policy decisions (finished)
+@subsection Policy decisions (finished)
+
+Here is a record the final decisions, along with links to the
+discussions.
+
+@menu
+* GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting::
+* GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs::
+* GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting::
+* GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14::
+* GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)::
+* GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists::
+* GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources::
+* GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities::
+* GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc::
+@end menu
+
+@node GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 1 - python formatting
+
+We will follow the indentation described in PEP-8.
+@uref{http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/}
+
+@itemize
+@item
+use 4 spaces per indentation level
+
+@item
+never mix tabs and spaces (for indentation)
+
+@item
+Code indented with a mixture of tabs and spaces should be
+converted to using spaces exclusively
+
+Once this is done, we should add @code{python -tt} to the build
+system to avoid such errors in the future.
+
+@end itemize
+
+There should be absolutely no tab characters for indentation in
+any @code{.py} file in lilypond git. All such files should be
+converted to use spaces only.
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00060.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00084.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00310.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00574.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 2 - mentors and frogs
+
+Nothing much was decided. The list of responsibilities was
+slightly altered; see the new one in @ref{Mentors}. We should
+encourage more use of the Frogs mailing list. There's a list of
+contributor-mentor pairs in:
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://github.com/gperciva/lilypond-extra/blob/master/people/mentors.txt}
+@end smallexample
+
+That's pretty much it.
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00311.html}
+@uref{}
+@uref{}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 3 - C++ formatting
+
+Speaking academically, C++ code style is a "solved problem". Let's
+pick one of the existing solutions, and let a computer deal with
+this. Humans should not waste their time, energy, and creativity
+manually adding tabs or spaces to source code.
+
+We have modified @code{fixcc.py} to use astyle, along with extra
+regex tweaks.
+
+@itemize
+@item
+the final script will be run @strong{blindly} on the lilypond
+source code. We will accept whatever formatting the final version
+of this script produces, with no manual tweaking.
+
+@item
+patches which have been run through this tool will not be rejected
+for style reasons. Any code formatting @qq{desires} which are not
+enforced by @code{fixcc.py} will not be considered grounds for
+rejecting a patch.
+
+@item
+for now, this style will not be enforced. It is not cause for
+concern if patches which do not follow the formatting done by
+@code{fixcc.py} are pushed. From time to time, Graham will run
+the formatter on the entire code base, and commit the resulting
+changes.
+
+In a few months, we will tighten up this policy item (with some
+sort of automatic processing), but that is outside the scope of
+this policy item and is a matter for later discussion.
+
+@item
+after the proposal is accepted, we will leave some time for
+existing patches to be accepted and pushed. The script was
+run on the source code on @strong{2011 August 01}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@subheading GNU code
+
+LilyPond is a GNU project, so it makes sense to follow the GNU
+coding standards. These standards state:
+
+@quotation
+We don’t think of these recommendations as requirements, because
+it causes no problems for users if two different programs have
+different formatting styles.
+
+But whatever style you use, please use it consistently, since a
+mixture of styles within one program tends to look ugly. If you
+are contributing changes to an existing program, please follow the
+style of that program.
+@end quotation
+
+(@uref{http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Formatting.html})
+
+With that in mind, we do not think that we must blindly follow the
+formatting given by the currrent version of Emacs.
+
+@subheading Implementation notes
+
+We can avoid some of the style change pollution in git history by
+ignoring whitespaces changes:
+
+@example
+git diff -w
+@end example
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00526.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00796.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00200.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00525.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00751.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 4 - lessons from 2.14
+
+@subheading History
+
+A brief history of releases:
+
+@multitable @columnfractions .2 .2 .3
+@headitem date (YYYY-MM-DD) @tab version @tab comment
+@item 2008-10-28 @tab 2.11.63 @tab nobody checking regtests
+@item 2008-11-17 @tab 2.11.64
+@item 2008-11-29 @tab 2.11.65
+@item 2008-12-23 @tab 2.12.0
+@item 2009-01-01 @tab @tab somewhere around here, Graham becomes
+officially release manager, but Han-Wen still builds the actual
+releases
+@item 2009-01-01 @tab 2.12.1
+@item 2009-01-25 @tab 2.12.2
+@item 2009-02-28 @tab 2.13.0
+@item 2009-06-01 @tab 2.13.1 @tab note jump in time!
+@item 2009-06-27 @tab 2.13.2 @tab first Graham release?
+@item 2009-07-03 @tab 2.13.3
+@item 2009-09-09 @tab @tab Graham arrives in Glasgow, gets a
+powerful desktop computer, and begins serious work on GUB (sending
+bug reports to Jan). It takes approximately 100 hours until GUB
+is stable enough to make regular releases.
+@item 2009-09-24 @tab 2.13.4
+@item 2009-10-02 @tab 2.13.5
+@item 2009-10-22 @tab 2.13.6
+@item 2009-11-05 @tab 2.13.7
+@item ...
+@item 2010-01-13 @tab 2.12.3
+@item ...
+@item 2010-03-19 @tab 2.13.16 @tab Bug squad starts doing a few
+regtest comparisons, but IIRC the effort dies out after a few
+weeks (BLUE)
+@item ...
+@item 2010-08-04 @tab 2.13.29 @tab Phil starts checking regtests (BLUE)
+@item ...
+@item 2011-01-12 @tab 2.13.46 @tab release candidate 1 (GREEN)
+@item ...
+@item 2011-05-30 @tab 2.13.63 @tab release candidate 7 (GREEN)
+@item 2011-06-06 @tab 2.14.0
+@end multitable
+
+@c A graphical display of bugs:
+@c
+@c @image{bugs-2.13-visualization,png}
+@c @image{zoom-2.13-visualization,png}
+
+@subheading Carl's analysis of the bugs
+
+A @file{csv} spreadsheet is available.
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00852.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+@example
+@uref{lilypond-issues-analysis.csv}
+@uref{lilypond-issues-analysis-trim-duplicates.csv}
+@end example
+
+There 148 issues marked with Priority=Critical in the tracker.
+
+I've done an analysis, and it looks to me like there was initially
+a backlog of critical issues that weren't fixed, and little work
+was being done to eliminate critical issues.
+
+Somewhere about 2010-08-01, critical issues started to disappear,
+but occasional new ones appeared.
+
+There were a couple of major changes that introduced unanticipated
+regressions (new spacing code, beam collision avoidance). These
+produced more than the expected number of regressions.
+
+It appears to me that we didn't really get serious about
+eliminating critical bugs until about 2010-06-15 or so. After
+that point, the number of critical bugs more-or-less steadily
+decreased until we got to a release candidate.
+
+Of particular interest, the first release candidate of 2.14 was
+released on 2011-01-12. Over the next 10 days, about a dozen bugs
+were reported and fixed. Release candidate 2 came out on
+2011-02-09. No surge of bugs occurred with this release.
+Candidate 3 came out on 2011-03-13; we got 2 bugs per week.
+Candidate 4 came out on 2011-03-29; 2 new bugs. Candidate 6 came
+out on 2011-04-07. We got a couple of bugs per week.
+
+@subheading Notes, commentary, and opinions
+
+@example
+Han-Wen: Overall, I think this cycle took too long
+Mike: I agree
+Graham: +1
+@end example
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-06/msg00797.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00364.html}
+@uref{}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 5 - build system output (not accepted)
+
+This proposal was too broad; after a month of discussion, Graham
+withdrew the proposal. Portions of it will be introduced in later
+proposals.
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00320.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00527.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00753.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01042.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00116.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00310.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing lists
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 6 - private mailing list
+
+Potentially sensitive or private matters will be referred to
+Graham. He will then decide who should discuss the matter on an
+ad-hoc basis, and forward or CC them on future emails.
+
+For emphasis, the project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and
+Graham; those three will always be CC'd on any important
+discussions.
+
+The lilypond-hackers mailing list will be removed.
+
+@subheading History
+
+There is some unhappy history about this idea in our development
+community:
+
+@example
+@uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html}
+@uref{http://news.lilynet.net/spip.php?article121}
+@uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00076.html}
+@end example
+
+@subheading Other projects
+
+The idea of private mailing lists is hardly uncommon in
+open-source software. For example,
+
+@example
+@uref{http://lwn.net/Articles/394660/} about debian-private
+@uref{http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html} private@@
+@uref{http://www.freebsd.org/administration.html#t-core}
+@uref{http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/} board members pledge
+to keep certain matters confidential
+
+every security team of every GNU/Linux distribution and OS
+@end example
+
+In fact, Karl Fogel's @qq{Producing Open Source Software}
+explicitly suggests a private mailing list for some circumstances:
+
+@example
+[on granting commit/push access to a contributor]
+
+But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is
+appropriate. You can't have votes about potential committers
+posted to a public mailing list, because the candidate's feelings
+(and reputation) could be hurt.
+
+@uref{http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate}
+@end example
+
+@subheading Board of governers, voting, etc?
+
+Many projects have an official board of directors, or a list of
+@qq{core developers}, with set term limits and elections and
+stuff.
+
+I don't think that we're that big. I think we're still small
+enough, and there's enough trust and consensus decisions, that we
+can avoid that. I would rather that we kept on going with
+trust+consensus for at least the next 2-3 years, and spent more
+time+energy on bug fixes and new features instead of
+administrative stuff.
+
+Project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and Graham.
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg00783.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01004.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00117.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 7 - developers as resources
+
+We shall treat developers (and contributors) as
+@strong{Independent volunteers}: each person does whatever they
+want, whenever they want. We have busy careers and lives; we make
+no expectations of action from anybody (with the exception of the
+6 people in @qq{Meister} positions).
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-07/msg01092.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00087.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00497.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 8 - issue priorities
+
+We will delete the @qq{priority} field of the issue tracker
+altogether. The @qq{type} system will be tweaked.
+
+Type-critical:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+a reproducible failure to build either @code{make} or @code{make
+doc}, from an empty build tree, in a first run, if
+@code{configure} does not report any errors.
+
+@item
+any program behaviour which is @strong{unintentionally} worse than
+the previous stable version or the current development version.
+Developers may always use the @qq{this is intentional}, or even
+the @qq{this is an unavoidable effect of an improvement in another
+area}, reason to move this to a different type.
+
+@item
+anything which stops contributors from helping out (e.g.
+lily-git.tcl not working, source tree(s) not being available,
+LilyDev being unable to compile git master, inaccurate
+instructions in the Contributor's Guide 2 Quick start).
+
+To limit this scope of this point, we will assume that the
+contributor is using the latest LilyDev and has read the relevant
+part(s) of the Contributor's Guide. Problems in other chapters of
+the CG are not sufficient to qualify as Type-Critical.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@subsubheading More new/changed types and labels
+
+Unless otherwise specified, the current types and labels will
+continue to be used. The new types introduced by this proposal
+are:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Type-crash: any segfault, regardless of what the input file looks
+like or which options are given. Disclaimer: this might not be
+possible in some cases, for example certain guile programs (we
+certainly can't predict if a piece of scheme will ever stop
+running, i.e. the halting problem), or if we rely on other
+programs (i.e. ghostscript). If there are any such cases that
+make segfault-prevention impossible, we will document those
+exceptions (and the issue will remain as a "crash" instead of
+"documentation" until the warning has been pushed).
+
+@item
+Type-maintainability: anything which makes it difficult for
+serious contributors to help out (e.g. difficult to find the
+relevant source tree(s), confusing policies, problems with
+automatic indentation tools, etc).
+
+@item
+Type-ugly: replaces Type-collision, and it will include things
+like bad slurs in addition to actual collision.
+
+@end itemize
+
+A new label will be added:
+
+@itemize
+@item
+(label) Needs_evidence: it is not clear what the correct output
+should look like. We need scans, references, examples, etc.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@subheading Reminding users about stars
+
+We can remind users that they can @qq{star} an issue to indicate
+that they care about it. Since we resolved to treat developers as
+independent volunteers, there is no expectation that anybody will
+look at those stars, but if any developer want to organize their
+work schedule according to the stars, they are welcome to do so.
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00019.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00277.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00413.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00624.html}
+@uref{}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@node GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
+@subsubsection GOP-PROP 9 - behavior of make doc
+
+If there are build problems, then it should be easier to find out
+why it's failing. This will be achieved with log files, as well
+as possibly including scripts which automatically display portions
+of those log files for a failing build.
+
+We will also add targets for building a specific manual (for
+quick+easy checking of doc work), as well as for building all
+documentation in a specific language (either English or a
+translated language).
+
+When you run @code{make doc},
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+All output will be saved to various log files, with the exception
+of output directly from @code{make(1)}.
+
+Note that @code{make(1)} refers to a specific executable file on
+unix computers, and is not a general term for the build system.
+
+@item
+By default, no other output will be displayed on the console, with
+one exception: if a build fails, we might display some portion(s)
+of log file(s) which give useful clues about the reason for the
+failure.
+
+The user may optionally request additional output to be printed;
+this is controlled with the @code{VERBOSE=x} flag. In such cases,
+all output will still be written to log files; the console output
+is strictly additional to the log files.
+
+@item
+Logfiles from calling lilypond (as part of lilypond-book) will go in
+the relevant
+@file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/out/lybook-db/12/lily-123456.log} file. All
+other logfiles will go in the @file{$LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR/logfiles/}
+directory.
+
+A single @code{make doc} will therefore result in hundreds of log
+files. Log files produced from individual lilypond runs are not
+under our control; apart from that, I anticipate having one or two
+dozen log files. As long as it is clear which log file is
+associated with which operation(s), I think this is entirely
+appropriate. The precise implementation will be discussed for
+specific patches as they appear.
+
+@item
+Both stderr and stdout will be saved in @code{*.log}. The order
+of lines from these streams should be preserved.
+
+@item
+There will be no additional @qq{progress messages} during the
+build process. If you run @code{make --silent}, a non-failing
+build should print absolutely nothing to the screen.
+
+@item
+Assuming that the loglevels patch is accepted, lilypond (inside
+lilypond-book) will be run with --loglevel=WARN.
+@uref{http://codereview.appspot.com/4822055/}
+
+@item
+Ideally, a failing build should provide hints about the reason why
+it failed, or at least hints about which log file(s) to examine.
@end itemize
+If this proposal is accepted, none of these policies will be
+assumed to apply to any other aspect of the build system.
+Policies for any other aspect of the build system will be
+discussed in separate proposals.
+
+@subheading Don't cause more build problems
+
+However, there is a danger in this approach, that vital error
+messages can also be lost, thus preventing the cause of the
+failure of a make being found. We therefore need to be
+exceptionally careful to move cautiously, include plenty of tests,
+and give time for people to experiment/find problems in each stage
+before proceeding to the next stage.
+
+This will be done by starting from individual lilypond calls
+within lilypond-book, and slowly moving to @qq{larger} targets of
+the build system -- after the individual lilypond calls are are
+producing the appropriate amount of output and this is saved in
+the right place and we can automatically isolate parts of a
+failing build, we will work on lilypond-book in general, and only
+then will we look at the build system itself.
+
+@subheading Implementation notes
+
+There is an existing make variable QUIET_BUILD, which
+alter the amount of output being displayed
+(@uref{
+http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/useful-make-variables}
+). We are not planning on keeping this make variable.
+
+The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
+@code{V=x} option. Presumably this is done by increasing
+@code{x}? If we support this option, we should still write log
+files; we would simply print more of the info in those log files
+to screen.
+
+The command @code{tee} may be useful to write to a file and
+display to stdout (in the case of VERBOSE).
+
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00378.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00703.html}
+@end smallexample
+
+
+@ignore
+@n ode GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
+@s ubsubsection GOP-PROP 10 - scheme indentation
+
+still under discussion
+
+@subsubheading Discussions
+
+@smallexample
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00625.html}
+@uref{https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg01026.html}
+@c @uref{}
+@end smallexample
+@end ignore
+
@node Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standardization (GLISS)
@end verbatim
? patch here:
+@smallexample
@uref{http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00467.html}
+@end smallexample
@item
Personally, I find it easier to understand when there's a repeated
@item
Discussion on
-http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
about \new vs. \context.
@item
Let users add their own items to the parser? comment 11 on:
-http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322}
@item
should engravers be pluralized (note_heads_engraver) or not
@item
should we allow numbers in identifier names? Issue:
-http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1670
+@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1670}
@item
should we officially allow accented characters? in general, how
\transpose c d e1
@end verbatim
+@item
+What should be the officially encouraged way of writing music for
+transposing instruments? Maybe it should be simplified?
+See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-07/msg00130.html
+
@end itemize
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff