On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 07:09:19AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 7/17/09 12:57 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > > My concern is that the entire "compiling" is slated to move to the > > CG, so it would make sense to do this at once. That said, we > > might split up the user- and packager-oriented parts of compiling > > from the developer-oriented parts. > > I think that the regression testing section doesn't make sense as part of > compiling. I have never considered running the regression tests to see if > compiling has succeeded. Once documentation is built, I'm satisfied that > LilyPond is installed properly. > > Regression tests are used for testing changes to LilyPond, so separating > this section out makes sense to me. > > OK, so now I have a new proposal: > > 1) Move AU 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4 to CG 2.1 > 2) Move AU 1.2.5 to CG 7 > 3) Drop AU 1.1 -- it's on the Install page > 4) Move 1.2.6 to CG 2.1
Yes, that looks right. > 5) For now, have AU 1 just add a reference to CG. (But CG 3.3.6 makes no > mention of a macro to reference to CG. Do we have one? If we don't, it > will just be ordinary text.) Ah, I see. I remember there being some issues when Jonathan added an @include to the CG, but there wouldn't be any problems if we just make it a link (especially with ordinary text). Ok, go ahead. This doesn't depend on having an essay or the like, so there's no point waiting like the other doc rearrangements. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
