Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint

[James]

Hello,

On 24 September 2012 09:22, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> I think it was during the documentation of the footnote stuff that we
>> came up with several examples (including use of s1*0/<>) that made clear
>> that we were better off refining the code rather than the documentation.
>>
>> And that's fine.  Changing code because it would be too embarrassing to
>> document it is certainly a better option than leaving it undocumented.
>
> New functionality must come with minimal documentation, otherwise it
> does not exist.  We cannot expect from documentation writers to work
> from reading the code.
>

I think we kind of had this conversation a few months (last year?) and
that the very least it should appear here:

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/changes/index.html

Most developers do try, or at least say there is no/should be
documentation for a new feature.

@devs-in-general

I've always offered to tidy up any submitted documentation (i.e. via
email or text file) and form a patch if that is too time consuming;
all I ask is to suggest an appropriate place/section that it should go
- this saves me a lot of time. The hardest thing to come up with are
'good' lilypond examples - indeed the footnote documentation in the NR
(initially) was spawned from Mikes own reg tests, that is better than
nothing.

James