Re: changes to Clef

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 07:51:03PM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 1/31/10 11:55 AM, "Patrick Schmidt" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > OK, so how about placing them closer to the treble, alto and bass clefs to
> > show that they can be used alternatively?
> 
> I'd be fine to have \treble \G \tenor \C \bass  \F.  If you'd like to
> prepare a patch with this, go ahead.

I'd rather keep them at the end, to somewhat discourage their use.
Only music history geeks will understand them; \treble is much
more widely understood.


> >> I hope I haven't frustrated you by doing this.  Thanks for your concern
> >> for
> >> improving the docs, especially for those areas related to tablature.  I'll
> >> do a better job reviewing next time.
> > I'm not frustrated because I need your feedback to improve. I'm awfully 
> > sorry
> > for increasing your workload instead of reducing it. I just wanted to help 
> > but
> > maybe I do the opposite. Some of Graham's comments also make me doubt 
> > whether
> > my english is up to standard.
> > 
> > So should I proceed as discussed?
> 
> Your english is definitely up to standard.  None of the problems were
> problems of improper english (except maybe the "abbreviation" vs. "synonym"
> difference).
> 
> Had I been doing my job properly, I'd have given a review similar to the one
> Graham gave, and then you'd have learned, and your next patch would be
> better.

Quoted for emphasis -- my complaints weren't directed at you,
Patrick.  Your patch was a good start; I'd be overjoyed if
everybody interested in the docs sent a patch of that quality.  It
wasn't perfect, but it's a great place to start from.

It was Carl's responsibility (and anybody else who commits
patches) to check that it fulfilled all the doc standards; he was
the only person at fault here.  But he took responsibility and
quickly fixed the problems, so there's no worry.

Cheers,
- Graham