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

[v . villenave]

On 2010/10/27 10:27:30, graham_percival-music.ca wrote:
> - 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.

I think it's best if we treat non-Western stuff as "notations and
tunings" rather than just "note names".  Here's a new patch set, please
have a look.

> - 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.

Indeed. However, it's pretty hard to draw the line between what we add
and what we disregard. What I'd suggest (see patch) is to open a new
chapter within the MG.  I think
- we have enough material to afford that,
- these terms are specialized enough to allow for really elaborate MG
entries,
- it avoids cluttering the "Classical/Western" MG with totally unrelated
terms and concepts,
- if anything, having a new @chapter to fill *might* encourage users to
help us expand it.

> - 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.

Hence my proposal of not mentioning "note names" anymore in the
non-Western section's title.

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

Well, Trevor did mention that it "looked better" :)

> 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.

I don't blame you for wanting to review stuff and have the final say.
(Well, let me rephrase that: Wanting to review stuff and have the final
say, is not what I blame you for. :-)

OK, now all I have to do is find something to do for the next 24
hours... :)

Cheers.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2755041/