On 2014/08/03 22:06:29, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Looks good James, although the node structure looks rather suspect.
I'm
surprised this built without error. I've indicated some changes, but
these may
not be correct or complete. Please check this carefully. The text reorganisation looks fine though, although I've only read it on
Rietveld and may
have missed things.
Trevor
Hello Trevor. The structure is very suspect at the moment and no it doesn't compile :) Hence the tracker is still 'needs work'. I am using this reitveld to help me see each change in context of what it was before rather than expecting any serious review just yet. My intention was to do this work a bit at a time to make it easier to review (3 or 4 separate patches), but I found that after even a little bit of re-oragnization, and before I had even begun to try to tighten up the text that much (as well as simplify the examples) that I was faced with either making large amounts of changes at once after all or leaving the documentation in a potentially worse state than it was before in between patches. I'd done a fair bit of work already, so I kept at it to see where it took me, if only to understand the chapter as a whole. As I didn't want to suddenly unleash a completely re-written and re-organized *whole* chapter and expect devs to review it properly, I thought I would simply plough on, get to the end and see how it looked. Once I had the complete chapter re-organized and re-assembled I could then get a much better idea of how I could really then break it all up into smaller patches after all. So don't waste any time just yet. Thanks for noticing though James https://codereview.appspot.com/120480043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
