2011/6/12 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > 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!
Unless you are doing it for the first time, that is :) Ok, it's not the time to discuss policies. Added as "Cross-staff chords - beaming problems workarounds" Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
