Re: [frogs] Re: patch for bug 729

["Carl D. Sorensen" <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 2/27/09 5:35 PM, "Graham Percival" <graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:17:53PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/27/09 9:52 AM, "Mats Bengtsson" <mats.bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not to mention the following example:
>>> input/lsr/demo-midiinstruments.ly
>> 
>> Don't modify the snippets.  That's handled by running convert-ly on the
>> those files.  That's why we try to keep as much syntax as possible in the
>> snippets; they're automatically fixed.
>> 
>> You only need to modify text in the body of the documentation, including any
>> examples that are inline in the docs.
> 
> Erm, that's exactly opposite.

OK, I think I've reached my dumb comment limit for the day, or maybe the
week.  You're right, of course.

> 
> - the NR tries to avoid overrides as much as possible to make
>   convert-ly more likely to work.
> - therefore, running convert-ly on the docs should fix everything.
> - automagic updating For Teh Win (tm).
> 
> - the snippets may use overrides and whatnot.
> - these will hopefully still work in convert-ly, but might not.
> - therefore, they are much more likely to require manual attention.
> - still, each snippet is small and well-contained, so it should be
>   easy for any moderately skilled lilypond user to update
>   them (i.e. they don't need to know git, texinfo, etc)

So, just for the record, I guess that the appropriate way to handle this
would be to:

1.  Search through input/lsr for relevant files.
2.  Fix the snippet to make sure it compiles properly.
3.  Copy the snippet to input/new
4.  Delete the snippet from input/lsr

Is that right?

Plus, I guess that something like these needs to go into the CG, so that we
never have to have this conversation on -devel again.  And the frogs don't
have to search the frogs archive either.

Thanks,

Carl


---

----
Join the Frogs!