Re: Remove arabic.ly from common note name languages. (issue2755041)

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Valentin Villenave
<address@hidden> wrote:
> If it's half-baked, then please do comment on it.

I would have rather commented in the codereview interface, but oh well.

- pitches.itely, line 600 in new version: was there supposed to be a
newline here?  I'm not certain why you started a new sentence on a new
line, so I thought it was worth checking this.  (I don't think that it
_should_ be a new paragraph, but it's not clear what your intention
was)

- same place, but more generally: I'm not certain quite what these
paragraphs are getting at (perhaps seeing it in a bit more context
would have helped), but I think they could be improved.

- world.itely, line 20: I *really* don't like the comment.  If it's a
TODO, then make sure you add a "TODO" string for ease of greppiness.
That said, I don't like seeing TODOs; I'd rather have a new issue in
the tracker.  That said*2, wtf don't you just add the music glossary
entries yourself?  If you don't know what to write in the Glossary,
you can still add the entry as a stub.  And then add a doc item for
"fill in stubs: makam, maqam, makamlarasdqrs".  Remember that new doc
writers find @nodes and @ref{}s confusing, so if old-timers prepare
the general layout of the text files, it can save newbies literally
hours.  I've added stubs a few times for new doc contributors.

- More generally, I'd rather see more clarity about languages vs.
music styles.  It's not really clear to me (as a quick+ineffectual
reader) why Arabic isn't just one more language.

- finally, yes, I'm wanting the patch to be *better*-quality than the
original material.  And I don't make any apology for that.

> Whilst I understand the need to make it a matter of principles, if you
> don't mind me asking: have you *looked* at the patch?

Yes.

> On a subject
> (removing arabic.ly) that we already discussed at length, and where we
> all agreed (AFAICR).

Yes, we did.

> Hadn't I ever heard anything from you on this
> subject, then of course I wouldn't have dreamt of pushing this patch
> without your blessing.

Umm, didn't you hear from me here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-10/msg00401.html


For clarity:
1. Yes, I agree with the general aim of the new language format, and
treating arabic.ly separately from those.
2. I think the current direction of the code is fantastic, and I'm
really really glad to see you working on it.
3. However, I don't want to rush in.  In particular, I want to review
any doc changes.
4. In particular*2, I want to review the FINAL version of any doc
patch.  After you've made any changes that other people asked.
5. In particular*3, I'm not going to drop everything and look at a new
patch as soon as it goes online.  I want at least a 24-hour period to
look at the patch.


In case #4 sounds like I'm being arrogant and disregarding other
developers: no, not at all.  Basically, whenever you have a "final
draft", I want it to be on codereview, and to get nothing but "LGTM"
or "+1" from people, for at least 24 hours.  Once that's done, go
ahead and push.
If you get ANY comments other than "LGTM/+1" -- even if it's just
"hey, there's a typo over here; you should replace "teh" with "the" --
then I want to see an updated patch on codereview.  Which waits for
another 24-hour period.

Cheers,
- Graham