On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:35:28PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Without intending the slightest offence towards those of you
> who've already put a lot of work into the CG, I think it can
> still be clearer.
The only organization that's gone into the CG is putting stuff
into chapters. The section
Hi Mark, Graham,
On 19/12/09 10:49, Graham Percival wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:35:28PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Without intending the slightest offence towards those of you
who've already put a lot of work into the CG, I think it can
still be clearer.
The only organization that's gon
On 12/18/09 10:57 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09 9:52 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
>>>
On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
wrote:
>
> A question. Does your code re
On 12/18/09 11:35 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Hey everyone.
>
> Without intending the slightest offence towards those of you
> who've already put a lot of work into the CG, I think it can
> still be clearer. I'm toying around with a bunch of new
> paragraphs over here, and I just wanted to l
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 02:16:19PM +, Ian Hulin wrote:
> Trevor did a brilliant job with the Windows section and in some respects
> it's clearer and less forbidding than the material in 1.1 to 1.4. It
> also duplicates a lot of the material in those sections.
With respect, I disagree. Tr
Okay...
I'll just show you what I was thinking. I know this looks
like a lot of work, but most of it would be shuffling stuff
around to have a more logical order of presentation, and a
more organized structure to facilitate referring to
specifics.
Some of it would entail adding text, but I'd be
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:37 PM
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 02:16:19PM +, Ian Hulin wrote:
Trevor did a brilliant job with the Windows section and in some
respects
it's clearer and less forbidding than the material in 1.1 to 1.4.
It
also duplicates a lot of the mat
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:45:15PM -, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
>> I just want to copy&paste, go get a coffee, then start editing
>> files.
>
> You might, but I don't agree this is a good attitude
> to encourage in contributors who might go on to
> write LilyPond code. We need contributors whose
On 12/19/09 3:39 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Okay...
>
> I'll just show you what I was thinking. I know this looks
> like a lot of work, but most of it would be shuffling stuff
> around to have a more logical order of presentation, and a
> more organized structure to facilitate referring to
1) Is there a difference between...
...`make doc' and `make doc *'?
...`make clean' and `make clean *'?
...etc.
2) If I'm running `make' or `make doc', can I continue to
work on git, changing branches, making commits, etc.? I
assume no, but if someone knows, let me know.
- Mark
On 12/19/09 7:29 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> 1) Is there a difference between...
>...`make doc' and `make doc *'?
>...`make clean' and `make clean *'?
>...etc.
I've never used make doc * -- I have no idea what that means.
>
> 2) If I'm running `make' or `make doc', can I continue
If you have a look at commit 06b6383aca113, you'll see a commented out
paragraph that looks like this:
@c FIXME: is it possible to have @example inside @warning?
@c @warning{ Adjacent non-staff lines should have non-increasing
@c @var{staff-affinity} from top-to-bottom. For example, the behavior
12 matches
Mail list logo
