lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Disagree with recent DOC change


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Disagree with recent DOC change
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:02:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux)

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I don't think that this is useful advice since binaries often are
>>>> incompatible with Scheme/Lilypond trees of other versions, and since
>>>> many regressions are not introduced in the binaries.
>>>
>>> Trevor meant the GUB packages, which install the "actual binary"
>>> as well as the scheme stuff, fonts, etc.
>>
>> Then the proper wording is "downloading binary releases" or "binary
>> packages".  But "binaries" means something different.
>
> I think this is nitpicking; we don't release just the binary files
> separately; people'd have to go through contortions to do what you
> think is suggested.

Well, _I_ understood the wording wrong.  Do you really want to bet your
life on it that I am the most stupid person possibly ever working with
Lilypond, so that nobody else possibly could misunderstand?

So that it would certainly be appropriate not to add another word to the
documentation that would clarify things?

Because Lilypond documentation has the design goal of not using a single
word too many?

Considering the absurdity of the vetting process, it is a pity that
commit access is only granted once one has proven to have the right
frame of mind.

I mean, get real: 3 involved persons and half a dozen postings for
getting a single-word improvement into the docs (assuming that it will
eventually get there)?  Perhaps half a man-hour of work time and 5µg of
Adrenaline for such trivialities?

-- 
David Kastrup





reply via email to

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