Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:00:31AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > As has always been stated, no is asking for documentation tracker
> > entries to be 'verbatim and polished or even complete' when they are
> > created, but it sure would help if 'something' was added - even if it
> > is just a link to a section or a para about what is bad/good/needs
> > improving. It's not like I am (now) busy doing anything else for the
> > LP project.
> 
> Well, if the code whizs are too lazy documenting what they know and
> choose to frolic on the beach instead, they might at least be useful for
> proofreading between two sips of Bacardi, don't you think?

I think that James was directing his remark towards advanced
users, who very rarely help doc suggestions.  The traditional
reason that users give for not improving documentation is "texinfo
is too hard" and "compiling is too hard".

Well, for the past few years, James has been willing to do both --
all users need to do is to write some text, make some examples,
and send it in.  (I see that Xavier has just done this for some
other issue; that's exactly the kind of thing I've been hoping to
happen for years)


I also want to emphasize that I thought that James' change was
good; I've been telling him to remove \with for years because I
never knew what it was for and I figured that using an \override
directly, or using the \layout{ \context{   trick was easier to
understand.

There's lots of untrustworthy syntax floating around in the docs,
and James and I (more him than me) have been doing our best to
straighten it out.  We could really use some advanced[1] users to
help out.

[1] if you know what "\with" does, then you're "advanced" as far
as I'm concerned.

This is *NOT* directed at programmers.  Programmers should keep on
programming.  This is directed at users.

Cheers,
- Graham