[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: contributors manual

From: Mark Polesky
Subject: Re: contributors manual
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 17:12:09 -0700 (PDT)

Graham Percival wrote:
> A larger question is whether we should keep "3.6
> Post-installation options".  In the first place, the word
> "options" implies (to me) something akin to configuration
> options, not "a list of possible commands" (which is the
> meaning used here).

How about restructuring the nodes like this (note that I
renamed some node names here):

3. Compiling LilyPond
   3.1 Overview of compiling
   3.2 Requirements
   3.3 Getting the source code
   3.4 Configuring make
   3.5 Compiling
   3.6 Installing and testing
       3.6.1 Installing from a local build
       3.6.2 Testing
   3.7 Generating documentation
       3.7.1 Documentation editor's edit/compile cycle
       3.7.2 Building documentation
       3.7.3 Saving time with CPU_COUNT
       3.7.4 Installing documentation
       3.7.5 Building documentation without compiling
   3.8 Problems


> Second, it might be easier to find relevant material if we
> just kept 3.6.1 Installing from a local build, and moved
> the doc-material to the Doc chapter, and the regrest
> material to the Regression chapter.

I don't think we should burden the Doc chapter with the
business of building docs.  I see the Doc chapter as being
accessible to contributors who won't be compiling.

- Mark


reply via email to

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