On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:35PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote: > 2011/6/11 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > > Is this problem likely to be unfixed? Or is there a compelling > > reason to override our normal doc policy in this specific case? > > I am always happy to grant exceptions if there is a good reason. > > I'd say that what we have here is an "architecture which may be > interpreted as bug". > (ofc it will be nice if the architecture was improved, but it isn't > necessary buggy)
I don't care whether it's a "bug" or an "architecture". Is it a problem? yes. I'm not arguing about that. Now, should we discuss this problem in the official Notation reference? Well, that depends on whether the problem is likely to be fixed in the next year or so. If Keith, or Mike, or Han-Wen, tells me "yes, we have absolutely no plans on changing this bug/architecture/problem/geography in the next few months", then our policy states that we should discuss this in the Notation reference. If not, then our policy states that we should *not* discuss this in the Notation reference. > At the end of the day, i'd like to have something in the docs that > helps avoiding this problem with cross-staff stems and beam collision. > We may name it whatever we want. Then I suggest you add it to LSR, and tag it with "docs". That's much faster and less messy than editing files in git! Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
