2014/1/1 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:35:36PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote: >> 2013/12/12 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: >> > Sorry, this awoke Grumpy Graham. >> >> I should have expected that. > > Yes, you should have. :P Happy new year, BTW.
And you too! >> Anyway, there are two parts to this cg cleanup: >> 1) removing obsolete info >> 2) reorganizing things. > > Not quite. 1) is obvious, but equally important is 1.5) update > incorrect info. Remember this latest iteration of interest in the > CG happened because one or two new contributors tried to follow > the published (incorrect) info, got into trouble, and > understandably were irritated. You're right that updating incorrect info is important. However, as far as i remember there's not much _incorrect_ info left - the problem that we have now is more that the information is confusing: duplicated, placed in unexpected places, etc. > Reorganizing is a seductively easy thing to propose, but it's > dangerous. It's easy to have opinions about how things should be > structured, so it's a huge bike-shed debate. Any proposal to > change the chapters and sections in the CG will involve at least > two weeks of debate on -devel. Can you honestly say that another > argument like that would not reduce your motivation? It would be > a shame if a bunch of good suggestions got lost (or delayed by a > few months) because they were wrapped up in a "reorganization" > patch. Just look at the proposed website changes from a week or > two ago. Well, i'll try to be careful about that. In any case, i have little time (and will have less in the next weeks), so i'll drop large-scale reorganization at the moment. > As an added bonus, if you make dozens of obviously good updates to > the CG over weeks and months, then people will gradually recognize > you as an authority on the subject. Then if/when you propose some > reorganizations, they'll be less skeptical. I wish i had lots of time so that i could plan long-term investments like that ;-) But you're right about breaking changes into small, self-contained and uncontroversial parts. >> > More thinking and discussion than we had the previous 4 times we >> > reorganized the CG? >> >> Quite frankly, i'm pretty sure that i gave CG more thought than all of >> us combined since Waltrop 2012 ;-) > > and before Waltrop, I spent 100x more time&effort on the CG than > you did. Your point? Ah, you're absolutely right! My point is The Golden Rule: he who does the work, makes the rules ;-) (of course i don't mean that one who does the work can ignore things the others say) >> Also, times change and stuff like CG gets out of date - even if it was >> ok after previous reorganization, it doesn't mean that a new >> reorganization isn't warranted, don't you think? > > Not really. We still have contributors who need encouragement and > an overview of development. We still (I think) have lilydev, and > that's still (I think) no easier way to get started. We still > have documentation, a website, programming in C++ and scheme, etc. > > Granted, the previous plans about having "mentors" fell apart, so > those parts of the CG should be removed. But other than that, I > think a reorganization would mostly be a distraction away from > fixing incorrect info. I don't mean to remove information about lilydev, docs, programming introduction etc. I'm mostly thinking about moving this info around. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
