On 2012/09/22 04:37:42, dak wrote:
On 2012/09/22 01:30:50, Graham Percival wrote: > LGTM > >
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
> File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right): > >
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely#newcode1067
> Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8 > woah, cool! When did that happen?
As a PostScriptum, comment #12 of issue 2032: <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2032#c12> Note that the change itself are two lines. The rest is documentation, convert-ly rules (and their results), cleanup, informing display-lily-music about the syntax change, trivial infrastructure. Apart from the decision to make this change (and the rather thorough convert-ly rules, apparently successful enough for nobody to ever take notice), all Frog level work. Nobody can be bothered enough to even comment. Yet when it comes to discussing things that will wreak havoc with the parser, everybody is fired up and inspired to throw his own spanner into the works. I am not saying that this is ill will. It is just a consequence of how we are organizing our work and information flow. The problem is that with regard to developer and user motivation, the consequences are indistinguishable from ill will and/or disregard. Users get "GLISS discussions" where they get the impression that developers don't care one bit for them, developers get "reviews" where they get the impression that users don't care one bit for them. I know both impressions to be far from the truth. But that's more by deduction rather than a direct feeling. http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
