Graham Percival wrote Saturday, January 01, 2011 7:16 AM
Nope, for precisely the reason you gave earlier: our documentation generally has zero input from programmers, so it's not at all a good representation of "what's intended". We have a set of "intended to be working" examples. They're called the regression tests. No more, no less. If a patch breaks those, then we reject the patch. If we notice in time. Look, we simply *cannot* offer users anything that would be "reasonable" by most standards.
[snip persuasive argument] You're right (as usual :) In our circumstances we must be pragmatic.
I think our best bet is: 1. stabilize and release 2.14, using the most restrictive interpretation of "stabilize" and "critical issue" we can. 2. drastically reduce (or abandon entirely) development for 3 months while we sort out the GOP policy questions (many of which should ease future development) 3. start picking up the pieces and try to recruit more contributors.
OK, I can go along with this. Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
