Re: renamed snippets

[Graham Percival]

General note: in the past few months, there's been way too many
private emails coming to me.  I know that some people are shy, but
we should really keep these on -devel.  Many people here have good
ideas and can find potential problems.

Documentation updates should still come directly to me, but other
than that, let's keep things public (and archived).


On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:12:36 +0100
"Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Incidentally, since the snippets are effectively part of the
> documentation, should they conform more strictly to the documentation
> guidelines? There's a wide variation in style as a result of their
> origin as LSR snippets.

I've discussed this briefly with Valentin.  Perhaps we should
split the "WRITING LILYPOND" part of writing-texinfo.txt into a
separate file, which could be used as a guidelines for snippets as
well.

... in fact, we might potentially add this to LM 5.

As for the doc-ness of snippets... this is where I wish that we
had been a bit more cautious about marking things as "docs".  Any
snippet that appears in the manual directly should of course
conform to our standards (although since it's easy to fix these
later, I'm not being strict about this)

Ideally, snippets which appear in the Snippet list in the docs
should also conform to our standards.

As for other snippets... I'm not too concerned.  I certainly don't
think that we should withhold snippets from LSR until they
rigorously match our guidelines.  It would be nice if the LSR
editors could rewrite every single snippet that people submit to
make it match our guidelines, but I'm not certain you have that
amount of time -- and even if you *do* have the time, I'm certain
that I could find better uses for it.  :)

Cheers,
- Graham