On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 12:03:40PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM, James wrote:
> > How is a web interface easier than email to enter information?
>
> I should've been more specific. I meant a web interface that would
> not only allow entering information, but also
James writes:
> Says someone who evidently has never built, submitted or tested 'doc'
> patches for LP.
Joseph Wakeling (12):
Extended documentation on Turkish classical music and Makam.
Turkish classical music corrections.
Turkish classical music documentation tweaks.
Co
On 10/06/2012 04:46 PM, James wrote:
Says someone who evidently has never built, submitted or tested 'doc'
patches for LP.
Er ... yes, I have. Actually my objections to having to use git-cl were based
on my experience of trying to submit a simple, small doc patch that I'd built
and tested.
Hello,
On 6 October 2012 15:23, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 10/06/2012 11:34 AM, James wrote:
>>
>> How is a web interface easier than email to enter information?
>
>
> Well, the problem with simple doc patches is that to submit them to Lilypond
> you have to go through the same procedure
On 10/06/2012 11:34 AM, James wrote:
How is a web interface easier than email to enter information?
Well, the problem with simple doc patches is that to submit them to Lilypond you
have to go through the same procedure as if you were submitting a code patch,
which means uploading to Riedveld
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM, James wrote:
> How is a web interface easier than email to enter information?
I should've been more specific. I meant a web interface that would
not only allow entering information, but also handle the patch - a
formal patch, not just a suggestion.
Take gith
Hello,
On 6 October 2012 09:51, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Just a musing
> I think the case shown below would perfectly qualify for "could you
> write a documentation patch for this? it can be done with a web
> interface, instructions are here" - if we had the web interface.
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 20
