On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:39:42 +0200 "Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Yes, but that way the author's name won't be displayed at all > > > (even the comment will be stripped out). > > > > Umm, yes. That is exactly the point. > > In this case, why on earth would you like the authors to sign their > snippets *at all*? Dunno. If you have some LSR-ish reason for it, go ahead. As I said before, I'm not convinced it's useful, but I'm not going to argue against it. > > We have a THANKS file for a reason -- adding attributions to every > > single contribution is unweildly. > > If this is a matter of THANKS, then we should just use the LSR user > accounts to have a list of contributors. Good idea. I'd prefer to get their real names instead of LSR user names, though. Feel free to add this to the THANKS. One issue, though: we generally don't list people in multiple places; if somebody's already down for main devel team or GDP, I don't think we need to list them separately as a LSR contributor. > > > I don't have any solution, but it's a pity that we always have to > > > print either the *whole* code verbatim or no code at all. > > > > Not a pity at all. We /want/ to show the whole file. > > I get your point, but aren't there some examples in the documentation > where we have to add not-directly-relevant commands to make the > examples clearer? e;g. adding some breaks, some alignment rules or > whatever? With the exception of the first item of the tutorial and the automatic accidental list, none that I've allowed. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
