Valentin Villenave wrote:
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?
Do you mean "documentation" or "manual"?
- if something is in the manual, it can only be upgraded by about half a
dozen people on the planet -- me, Mats, John... maybe some of the other
developers if it was really urgent. Note that none of the GDP helpers
are able to do this.
- if something is in LSR, it can be upgraded by anybody. OK, you need
to approve the change, but if necessary we could have more LSR editors.
I mean, the only technical ability you need is the use of a web
browser (instead of git, building the docs, permission to upload to
lilypond git, etc).
- if something is in LSR and is tagged with "docs", it AUTOMAGICALLY
becomes part of our documentation. The "Snippets" link on the main doc
page points to files built from input/lsr/*/ . This is part of our
_documentation_, although not part of the _manual_.
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.
There's another dozen such examples in input/new/ . I really don't see
the point of adding them until LSR is upgraded.
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
