[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More documentation

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: More documentation
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 04:53:03 -0700

On Thu, 22 May 2003 23:06:20 +0200
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > If we want to restart the FAQ list, I still think the Wiki solution
> > is to prefer. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to support
> > the FAQ list more actively (maybe I would if I spent more time on the
> > list and less on answering similar questions over and over again).
> We have some plans to redo the website, and our current efforts are in
> the CVS module newweb (see
> , an older
> version is available from ). We
> also envision a FAQ under "About", which should address often
> recurring general themes, like XML support, whether Lilypond =
> musixtex, etc.

Just to clarify, when I said "FAQ", I really meant it in the literal sense
-- frequently asked questions on lilypond-user.  FAQs often mean documents
that answer all sorts of questions (and there's nothing wrong with the
changing definition), but what I imagined was more specific than that.

I just realized that I linked to my new wiki page in my previous email
without explaining it... then again, I guess it kind-of explains itself.

One question, though: can I include any emails that are on lilypond-user,
or should I ask people's permission before including their emails?  Since
the emails are publically archived anyway, I think I can just go ahead and
copy them onto the wiki page, but...?
> The current document (on the web) is hard to navigate and looks
> intimidating due to its sheer size, so we have a plan to reorganise
> that as a subdirectory tree, e.g.

That sounds like an excellent idea.
> Those that wish to contribute can help with this, or help revise that
> directory (things to look for: check all examples for currentness,
> bugs, octavation, staffsize, clarity, brevity, places to link it from
> the refman)
> Just to put this in perspective: a revised and updated manual, along
> with reorganisation of the input/ directory is the only thing holding
> back a 1.8 release.  If people would help with that, we would be able
> to release 1.8 earlier.

Wow.  I had no idea 1.7.x was at that stage.  I'm going to stop thining
about general new documents until after 1.8 comes out.  Hey, if you're
going to be changing the syntax for 2.0, we might as well change the
documents too, right?  :)

OK, question: what would be most useful for me to do?  As I've mentioned
previously, I don't have much technical knowledge (of C, scheme, or even
shell scripts in makefiles).  I'm comfortable editing existing documents
(such as refman.itely) as long as I don't have many problems building
the docs.

Should I work on the wiki pages?  Although I think that would be ultimately
helpful, I don't think that they're stopping the 1.8 release.  Should I
edit refman for English grammar?  Again, while this may be useful, I'm not
certain that it's urgent to get it done before 1.8.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]