On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 12:00:04AM +0100, Xavier Scheuer wrote: > OK, but there is still a problem in current "policy", isn't it?
I don't see any problem. > I mean, without this request on LilyPond French Users mailing list, > what would have happened ? We'd do it when hen we tackled issue 1217, the **only** High-priority doc issue: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1217 > Reinhold implemented these new features more than 4 months ago, without > documenting them in the [notation] manual (as current policy). We have undocumented features from longer than 4 months ago. If you're interested in this, then start looking for them and writing docs. This is a Frog task, after all. If you want better documentation, then start writing documentation. > Should I have a look at Reinhold's PATCH 1698054, try to understand > the new commands in order to do this "mundane doc task"? The first place to look would be any regression tests that were added for this. Then create 1-3 short lilypond input files which demonstrate the feature. Once you've done that, we can talk about the next step. > Or should I wait because this new patch for "keeping state in > part_combine_engraver" may induce some changes in the way > part-combination decision will be done? Dunno about that. - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
