----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kastrup" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Review of the NR
"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes:
I've just spent a happy few hours reading the NR (pretty much all of
it!), and have a list of 41 corrections - they fix things like
snippets that should be ragged right, lines too long, some
explanations that are no longer accurate, etc., etc. I guess it will
take me a day to fix them. Do you think it would be better to list
them here first, or just go ahead and post a patch for review?
I'd prefer one patch/issue per correction. But the effort for that is
not in a realistic relation to the reviewers who are actually going to
look at it. It would still be nice if you organized this into separate
commits (git rebase -i and git add -p can be pretty useful for that kind
of thing) but it likely does not need more than a single issue in the
tracker.
Most of them are so small that it wouldn't make sense/be practical to do a
patch per alteration. Perhaps the best compromise would be a patch per
section of the NR - i.e. 5 patches.
The most important consideration is that you don't do this in a manner
that leaves you with a "this is the last time I'll ever volunteer for
something like that" taste in the mouth.
That's why I thought I'd start here. Reviewers - please remember the
intention is to improve the documentation, not make it perfect in all
respects. When I post proposed changes, please think "is this better?", not
"is there a slight alternative that will cause a long debate and create no
improvement?". In the final analysis, if you have proposed amendments you
think are better, go ahead and put them up for review.
--
David Kastrup
.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
