On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:24:06AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > The rejected patch is unfortunate, but in the near future I think > > we'll continue to see good things sometimes being rejected. Most > > developers (including Carl) only know bits and pieces of the > > architecture, so a lot of patches won't be understood. > > That's not a good situation. Developers come and go. So it would seem > like a good idea to make the architecture more transparent. Part of > that is documentation, part of it is simplification.
I agree, but there's no magic wand to wave to get simpler architecture and documentation. Any change to the architecture should only be done if it's understood, which means waiting for Han-Wen's blessing for any patch. You're welcome to write up documentation about the current architecture; you're probably one of the top 10 people in the world when it comes to knowledge of lilypond architecture. It would either go in Documentation/extending/ or Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi, depending on precisely what kind of description you're thinking about writing. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
