Graham Percival writes: > And only about 10% regtests are useful *as documentation*. 60 easily > fits inside 220. If we missed a few, we can add them. > Most of the regtests are easily covered by the manual.
Okay, maybe I underestimated the manual. I took a look at some interesting ones (feature-wise) and they were all covered in the manual. > What's the documentation value of tie-grace.ly ? It works exactly > like you'd expect it to work. This tells you two things: 1) lilypond has this feature, so *that* you can expect this feature to work. There are still quite a number of music notation constructs that just are not implemented yet. 2) the version of lilypond that this regtest refers to, is not broken. I agree that from a documentation pov, the two points above are rather weak, but they are still needed or at leaste valuable for a potential bug report/feature request. Consider for example beam-damp.ly. This is something that you do not want to have in the documentation, but you do want a power user to know about this. Especially if it breaks in a development version. > Power-users know how to read the program reference. They can see the > features there. > > Look, the regression tests are not _intended_ as documentation, and > they _should not_ be intended as documentation. They are regression > tests! Ok, these are very good points. I also agree that the new documentation page is better for new users. The regression test is ugly, but that should be fixed, because it's important for developers. And I would rather have lilypond developer friendly too. How about if I add a small link somewhere at the bottom that says `developers/power user info' to a new page that lists the regession tests and the comparisons (and ...?)? > I wish that more users searched the mailist archives, but they > don't. Useful tips sent to the mailist are essentially lost knowledge; > that's why I've really been pushing LSR. Yes. > Advertising goes in the Examples or in the new "inspirational > headword" examples that are planned in GDP. Ok. > Users report bugs without reading the *manual*. They're not going to > check the regtests. Yes, you're probably right. Thanks for the explanation! Greetings, 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://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
