Mats Bengtsson writes: > But, at the same time, you want to encourage people to submit > documentation patches (and other patches) and it's certainly > a big advantage if it's easy for them to build the documentation > after a change to see what it looks like before they submit the > patches.
You are right. Maybe we are sending conflicting messages: do not compile Lily! Help us (with the docs), send patches! What to do? Maybe we should just change the 'do not compile' attitude a bit, and have 'supported' development platforms with a detailed recipe to compile lily. The contributers of binary releases should make sure that the recipe stays up to date. Would this work? -- 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
