Re: What's the deal with info documentation images?

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:36:33AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Well, yes.  FIXMEs generally aren't impressive.  The FIXMEs will
> > definitely be dealt with.  The images might be dealt with, if
> > somebody deals with them.
>
> But previously (info "(lilypond)") lead to useful top-level information.
> Currently it leads to a chaotic ensemble of FIXMEs, side remarks only
> relevant for web pages,

... and by some odd coincidence, we haven't made a stable release
with it in such a state.  Imagine that!

> It is quite difficult to actually find a working link to _any_ useful
> documentation since half of the links don't work and the other half has
> non-obvious names and a structure that has nothing to do with info.

If you're tracking git, you would have noticed that I added such
links before you sent this message.

> I don't see _any_ advantage for the resulting info documentation at
> all.  With regard to info, the previous arrangement was better in all
> respects I can imagine.

The previous arrangement dumped you into the NR, which is not
suitable for beginners.  It also *completely* missed the important
info in Usage / AU, namely the command-line arguments.  With the
new system, users are directed to the appropriate manuals.

Unlike most projects, lilypond has extensive documentation.  In
order to let people navigate through and find the part(s) they
want to read, we have it split between multiple manuals.  I can't
identify any one manual (other than the current "general" one)
that would make sense for a "info lilypond".
(or rather, if I was *forced* to pick one, I'd go with the AU,
since that at least has the command-line arguments)


I'd accept a patch that produces an info version of just the
"Manuals" page.  Or made it so that "info lilypond" started at the
Manuals page.

Cheers,
- Graham