2007/11/15, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As I have said earlier, I think it would be a big loss if the > web site could not provide the full documentation for > multiple old version, including a "complete" set of example files > with the correct syntax for the corresponding version.
This is one of the reasons why I still haven't fully understood the point in tagging LSR snippet as "docs": if a snippet is documentation relevant, then it should probably be added to the documentation as a "real" example, shouldn't it? > I'm fully aware of all the advantages of LSR and exploiting > this examples in the official docs, but I don't want to lose > the support for multiple versions. Thank you for rising the question of the *future* compatibility; it's a fact that until now I've mostly been thinking about previous versions issues. > Graham Percival wrote: > > Yes, but this is unavoidable. Lilypond GIT needs to compile with the > > specific version of lilypond. The best we can do is run the snippets > > through convert-ly. That's all I wanted you to make clear. > > If you're going to ask about upgrading LSR, bear in mind that this > > involves an unknown amount of work from Sebastiano, and that 2.11.34 > > contains known serious bugs. Based on the reaction to .35, I might > > propose .36 as a candidate for LSR-upgrading. Oh yes; anyway, I'm fine with LSR running 2.10. I've just rewritten the LSR contributing page with that in mind, and I'm fine with my idea of marking not-yet-working snippets with "[needs LSR upgrade]" or something. I know you're not fond of it, but as long as it applies to a dozen snippets it's perfectly manageable. Regards, Valentin _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
