Thanks for reviewing Simon.
https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi File Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode120 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:120: Google's Reitveld code review tool. On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
This should read Rietveld. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t _belong_ to Google IIUC. But given the
close links
this is probably a legit simplification :-)
Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode133 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:133: @item @strong{GIT branches}: On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
The official capitalisation is ‘Git’, I think.
Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode147 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:147: translation patches directly to it aswell. On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
as well – two words.
Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode157 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:157: files) between released stable and unstable versions as well as checked On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
Why the parens?
No idea. Fixed. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode176 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:176: on the issue tracker; also see @ref{Issues}. On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
‘see also’?
See also the dog. Also see the dog. No, that doesn't make sense grammatically (at least in English it doesn't). https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode194 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:194: more discussion is needed, left at @code{Patch-review}. In all cases On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
Could this use @itemize?
No I don't think so. There are enough on this page already and this single @item encapsulates everything in that 'single' step. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode216 Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:216: compromise we have found.} On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
I’d prefer the former wording, except of course for the wrong time
span. Starting a sentence with 'Yes' bothers me in technical writing. Does code 'reach' or 'get merged into'? Also trying to remove 'emotive' words (like 'unfortunate') which may not always be obvious to non-native speakers or those that do not speak as good English as you obviously do. I probably need a comma instead of a full stop. OK I have re-written this slightly. https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
