Graham Percival writes: > I think I've got my life organized enough to start sending in doc > patches again; sorry for the gap. Should I track 2.0.x or 2.1.y?
Good to have you back at it! I would suggest that anything beyond a necessary fix should go in 2.1. If someone feels the need and has the time to backport non-critical stuff that's not experimental to 2.0, that's ok. > In most cases the documentation fixes will benefit current 2.0 > users, but if I make changes to 2.0, will they get lost when 2.1 > becomes 2.2? Should doc patches be applied to both branches? No, all real work should always go in 2.1, 2.0 is an option. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
