Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?

[David Kastrup]

We have the following patch in staging (and likely soon in master)

commit d11e23cca2df1267b25c86d96a4dcffa957a7a55
Author: James Lowe <address@hidden>
Date:   Sat Dec 3 09:42:02 2011 +0000

    Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol
    
    Simplified the \override constructions in @lilypond examples.
    
    A first step for the forthcoming patch for 1935
    
    Agreed with by Trevor and Graham.

diff --git a/Documentation/notation/staff.itely b/Documentation/notation/staff.i
index 052254e..bbf1327 100644
--- a/Documentation/notation/staff.itely
+++ b/Documentation/notation/staff.itely
@@ -431,9 +431,7 @@ staff.  For an explanation, refer to the snippet section in
 @ref{Clef}.
 
 @lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2]
-\new Staff \with {
-  \override StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
-}
+\override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
 { d4 d d d }
 @end lilypond


What is the idea behind that?  This changes the examples from something
that works standalone to something that bombs out with

lilypond /tmp/xxx.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.15.21
Processing `/tmp/xxx.ly'
Parsing...
/tmp/xxx.ly:1:0: error: syntax error, unexpected \override

\override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3

It only works inside of more complex music expressions, and it is rather
bad style to change the Staffsymbol inside of music expressions anyway.
For example, it won't work timely if a parallel voice starts with a
\grace, not even if you explicitly instantiate all voices.

Why are changes like that "agreed with" in the light of a "forthcoming
patch"?

-- 
David Kastrup