On 10/06/2012 04:46 PM, James wrote:
Says someone who evidently has never built, submitted or tested 'doc' patches for LP.
Er ... yes, I have. Actually my objections to having to use git-cl were based on my experience of trying to submit a simple, small doc patch that I'd built and tested. It felt a rather hefty and complicated amount of stuff to do compared to simply emailing someone a set of patches, or submitting a merge request on GitHub.
I think you perception of what we do and why is skewed.
Well, I can see that it's important to test that doc patches _build_ OK, but I don't see how the code test suite is relevant to documentation. But I'm sorry if I've overlooked something here.
So does poorly submitted documentation suggestions, but hey.. *anyone* can write documentation right? With clear understanding, good syntax, spelling, sentence structure and oh and good lilypond examples. Easy-peasy.
... but as you and I both know, writing correct TeXinfo that builds without error is not quite so simple. I do know what that entails, and I do ensure that any patches I submit build correctly.
If I've missed some important aspect of testing which _is_ relevant to docs, then I apologize. But I don't think Janek's idea that it should be possible to simplify doc submissions is wrong.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
