[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: LSR -> lilypond docs

From: Valentin Villenave
Subject: Re: LSR -> lilypond docs
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:38:45 +0100

2007/11/15, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
> As I have said earlier, I think it would be a big loss if the
> web site could not provide the full documentation for
> multiple old version, including a "complete" set of example files
> with the correct syntax for the corresponding version.

This is one of the reasons why I still haven't fully understood the
point in tagging LSR snippet as "docs": if a snippet is documentation
relevant, then it should probably be added to the documentation as a
"real" example, shouldn't it?

> I'm fully aware of all the advantages of LSR and exploiting
> this examples in the official docs, but I don't want to lose
> the support for multiple versions.

Thank you for rising the question of the *future* compatibility; it's
a fact that until now I've mostly been thinking about previous
versions issues.

> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Yes, but this is unavoidable.  Lilypond GIT needs to compile with the
> > specific version of lilypond.  The best we can do is run the snippets
> > through convert-ly.

That's all I wanted you to make clear.

> > If you're going to ask about upgrading LSR, bear in mind that this
> > involves an unknown amount of work from Sebastiano, and that 2.11.34
> > contains known serious bugs.  Based on the reaction to .35, I might
> > propose .36 as a candidate for LSR-upgrading.

Oh yes; anyway, I'm fine with LSR running 2.10.
I've just rewritten the LSR contributing page with that in mind, and
I'm fine with my idea of marking not-yet-working snippets with "[needs
LSR upgrade]" or something. I know you're not fond of it, but as long
as it applies to  a dozen snippets it's perfectly manageable.


reply via email to

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