1 Jul 2011 03:21
Re: Issue 1716 in lilypond: No convert-ly rule for the fix for issue 1655
<lilypond <at> googlecode.com>
2011-07-01 01:21:19 GMT
2011-07-01 01:21:19 GMT
Updates: Status: Started Owner: Carl.D.S... <at> gmail.com Comment #9 on issue 1716 by Carl.D.S... <at> gmail.com: No convert-ly rule for the fix for issue 1655 http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1716 I totally agree with "No backport of 1655" as that was a syntax change. I'm not sure I agree about no convert-ly rule in 2.15, which was the genesis of this question. Neil argues against a convert-ly rule; James and Reinhold (and I think I) argue in favor of a NOT_SMART convert-ly rule for any deleted syntax, even if it *is* an internal property. I believe that adding a convert-ly rule would prevent somebody later coming back and adding a Critical Regression. Since I haven't heard anybody say we *shouldn't* add a NOT_SMART rule, just that we *don't need to* add a NOT_SMART rule, I will go ahead and add a NOT_SMART rule unless I hear well-reasoned complaints. But I won't backport to 2.14.
RSS Feed