Am 23.01.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> On 23.01.2017 22:47, Urs Liska wrote:
>> So while it's perfectly possible to put OLL projects on the list and to
>> apply for them (or others not listed there) in case of doubt projects
>> working on LilyPond itself might be the preference of the d
On 23.01.2017 22:47, Urs Liska wrote:
So while it's perfectly possible to put OLL projects on the list and to
apply for them (or others not listed there) in case of doubt projects
working on LilyPond itself might be the preference of the developer
community.
[…]
What I would see as a better pro
Am 23.01.2017 um 21:53 schrieb Jeffery Shivers:
> This might be selfish, but how about at least one of those ideas be an OLL
> (or even scholarLY) thing?
I'd like to have others comment on this, but technically this could be
very well possible.
I must admit that I felt somewhat uneasy last year
This might be selfish, but how about at least one of those ideas be an OLL
(or even scholarLY) thing?
I can't guarantee what the exact status of scholarLY annotations and the
LaTeX package will be by April - therefore I definitely don't suggest a
direct extension of *that/those* projects. (Althoug
>
>PS:
>I've also provided a patch containing a section with recommendations to
>potential students. They draw from my own experience as a mentor last
>year and suggestions discussed both on the mentors' mailing list and
>the
>mentors' summit last year. Please consider these paragraphs too, as
>
