Re: Doc: document \time command fully (2807) (issue 6532055)

[dak]

On 2012/09/22 04:37:42, dak wrote:
> On 2012/09/22 01:30:50, Graham Percival wrote:
> > LGTM
> >
> >

http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
> > File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right):
> >
> >

http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely#newcode1067
> > Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8
> > woah, cool!  When did that happen?

As a PostScriptum, comment #12 of issue 2032:

<URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2032#c12>

Note that the change itself are two lines.  The rest is documentation,
convert-ly rules (and their results), cleanup, informing
display-lily-music about the syntax change, trivial infrastructure.
Apart from the decision to make this change (and the rather thorough
convert-ly rules, apparently successful enough for nobody to ever take
notice), all Frog level work.

Nobody can be bothered enough to even comment.  Yet when it comes to
discussing things that will wreak havoc with the parser, everybody is
fired up and inspired to throw his own spanner into the works.

I am not saying that this is ill will.  It is just a consequence of
how we are organizing our work and information flow.  The problem is
that with regard to developer and user motivation, the consequences
are indistinguishable from ill will and/or disregard.

Users get "GLISS discussions" where they get the impression that
developers don't care one bit for them, developers get "reviews" where
they get the impression that users don't care one bit for them.

I know both impressions to be far from the truth.  But that's more by
deduction rather than a direct feeling.


http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/