[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GDP: rearrange manual

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: GDP: rearrange manual
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:34:45 +0200
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.5)

Just one general comment for the moment: I'd rather propose longer than
shorter subsections. I think that there already is too much fragmentation
at some places for the moment, which means that you never get the chance
to see the full picture as a reader. We shouldn't expect a user to keep
reading several consecutive subsections, especially not in a reference
manual, where you expect to get an answer to your question by just looking
at a single subsection (=web page in the on-line manual).


Quoting Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

Rune Zedeler wrote:
Graham Percival skrev:

To keep discussion focused and as un-confused as possible, this is a
discussion *only* about the arrangement of subsections.  Other parts of
GDP will be discussed later.

This means:
- propose new/changed chapter/sections
- propose renamings of chapter/sections
- *do not* discuss new subsections or renamings of subsections.  That
 will come later.

Sorry I do not understand what you mean.
How can we discuss "arrangement of subsections" without discussing new subsections or renaming of subsections?
Like this:
"6.1.8 rests and 6.1.9 should not be part of 6.1 pitches, because they're not real notes. Move them to 6.3 rhythms instead"


"9.3 Vocal music is too large.  Split it up into:
9.3 Adding lyrics
9.3.1 Setting simple songs
9.3.2 Entering lyrics.

9.4 Multiple stanzas and aligning lyrics
9.4.1 foo
9.4.2 bar

Also, 9.3.8 Ambitus should be moved into chapter 7"

In other words, treat the subsections as atoms (indivisible parts) and form them into new structures.

The reasons:
- I don't want new proposed subsections right now, since writing new docs takes a lot more work than rearranging docs. We'll tackle this step in about a week, once I know how much help we have

- I don't want renamed subsections yet, so that it's easy for everybody to compare the new arrangement with the current one. When we start renaming subsections, it gets much more complicated.

Btw: Chapters are the ones with one number, sections are the ones with two numbers and subsections are the ones with tre numbers, right?
Yes, sorry.  I should have explained that.

- Graham

lilypond-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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