On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 03:15:10PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 janvier 2010 à 23:02 +, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
> > Why not qualify each of these generic words? Like
> > Graham did with "Summary of contributing"?
>
> I second this for node names; as for section titles, they
Le vendredi 08 janvier 2010 à 23:02 +, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
> Why not qualify each of these generic words? Like
> Graham did with "Summary of contributing"?
I second this for node names; as for section titles, they needn't be
unique, so we could use the same title 'Introduction' for each
Graham Percival wrote:
> 1 Introduction
> [...]
> 1.4 lily-git
> (maybe -- have you decided one way or the other?)
Yes. lily-git instructions will go into chapter 2 (I'm
still working on this).
- Mark
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, January 08, 2010 6:15 PM
Graham Percival wrote:
***snip "do we actually want a separate 'For unix
developers' " discussion about the new CG 1 introduction
***
I'm not happy with the current layout in having it as a
node. If we have it at all, I'd suggest a small bi
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:15:18AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > I'm not happy with the current layout in having it as a
> > node. If we have it at all, I'd suggest a small bit at
> > the top of the "for other contributors" section. Mark,
> > what do you think about this
Graham Percival wrote:
> ***snip "do we actually want a separate 'For unix
> developers' " discussion about the new CG 1 introduction
> ***
>
> I'm not happy with the current layout in having it as a
> node. If we have it at all, I'd suggest a small bit at
> the top of the "for other contributors"
***snip "do we actually want a separate 'For unix developers' "
discussion about the new CG 1 introduction ***
I'm not happy with the current layout in having it as a node. If we
have it at all, I'd suggest a small bit at the top of the "for other
contributors" section. Mark, what do you think a
Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>> Summary for experienced Unix developers
>>> Full details for new contributors
>>>
>>> Then of course there is a lot more to add to provide
>>> "full details". But that can come later.
>>
>> Well, this is just the introduction. Full details will
>> come in the chapter on
Mark Polesky wrote Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:18 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
The section headings need to make it clearer what audience
is being addressed. Perhaps
Summary for experienced Unix developers
Full details for new contributors
Then of course there is a lot more to add to provide
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> The section headings need to make it clearer what audience
> is being addressed. Perhaps
>
> Summary for experienced Unix developers
> Full details for new contributors
>
> Then of course there is a lot more to add to provide "full
> details". But that can come later.
Wel
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:21:06AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > I think everybody liked the idea of the intro chapter,
> > even if there's slight uncertainty over one section of it
> > (i.e. lily-git). Let's get the part(s) that everybody
> > agrees with done.
>
> Okay
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:21 AM
Graham Percival wrote:
I think everybody liked the idea of the intro chapter,
even if there's slight uncertainty over one section of it
(i.e. lily-git). Let's get the part(s) that everybody
agrees with done.
Okay, I've attached a patch th
Graham Percival wrote:
> Could we get the new introduction chapter added? I've
> been wanting to add the info about lilypond mentors for a
> while, but I don't want to add a new chapter filled with
> stubs if you're going to add the same new chapter filled
> with real sections.
For the moment I'm
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:58:11PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> John Mandereau wrote:
> > Could you consider adding something like the following to
> > Git pulling instructions? Maybe this could be under a
> > @knownissues section (or "Troubleshooting") at the bottom
> > of the the node "Update
John Mandereau wrote:
> Could you consider adding something like the following to
> Git pulling instructions? Maybe this could be under a
> @knownissues section (or "Troubleshooting") at the bottom
> of the the node "Update command".
Sure thing.
By the way, I had less time than expected last w
Hi Mark,
Could you consider adding something like the following to Git pulling
instructions? Maybe this could be under a @knownissues section (or
"Troubleshooting") at the bottom of the the node "Update command".
%
If pull fails because of a message like
@example
error: Your lo
16 matches
Mail list logo
