Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:45:58PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Hulin" <[email protected]> >> To: "Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:48 PM >> Subject: Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055) >> >> >Implementation >> > >> ><tbs> by a grown-up who understands how the docs are compiled. > > That's the sticking point. > >> My understanding was that there was a desire to index /foo and foo >> as the same, and have a single index. You want to fix that, go >> ahead. > > Yes. Note that this would require adding functionality to > texinfo, and since I don't want to require CVS versions of > software as part of our doc build, that will require a texinfo > release, and there hasn't been any texinfo release since 2008 so > that would require a lot of work on that side of things. Oh, and > even if there _was_ a new texinfo release, we'd need to have a few > rounds of bugfixing in texinfo and/or rewriting our docs so that > they work on the new version of texinfo because probably a lot > will have changed. > > Short answer: we're stuck with the current indices. No point > having a policy discussion for a policy that can't possibly be > implemented in less than 12 months. > (even if texinfo had a release today, it would take time to sort > out the bugs and get that stable version into linux distributions) > > > If and when texinfo _is_ updated, and our docs _do_ compile in > that version, we can have a policy discussion about what we'd like > to see at that time.
We can still decide on what we want to see in our source code. Matching that to the realities of an existing Texinfo implementation is then a matter of changing macros. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
