Re: Web: Download: Add introductory text (issue 40510046)

[Urs Liska]

Am 15.12.2013 14:14, schrieb James:
> Urs,
>
> On 15/12/13 12:23, Urs Liska wrote:
> > I'm worried about the opposition even my first modest suggestions raise.
> > There will be patches with more involved changes to come. And if each
> > tiny bit is discussed to death from exactly the developer's
> > perspective that seems part of the problem, I'll surely consider it an
> > inappropriate use of my time quite soon.
>
> You will need to be prepared for this kind of back and forth when doing
> anything significant with regard to Documentation.

I know that and I'm prepared, but I'm only willing to a certain extent 
to let this overtake my work and my attitude towards LilyPond.

> ...
>
> Just remember it isn't because we don't care what you think or want :)
> it's because we care _too much_ that some doc edits (and web includes
> this) takes time and needs discussion.

I know that and I fully agree that it's important to be somewhat strict 
about what comes into LilyPond or its parts. And I also see that not 
_each_ of my patches is objected against.
But it's actually quite off-putting when you prepare a patch that is 
more or less based on a broad (and astonishingly productive) discussion 
on lilypond-user, and then (after two steps of fine-tuning) someone 
steps out and asks "why are you doing this?". (This is not personal 
against Graham because I know next it might be someone else.)
Viewed from the very narrow perspective of the actual patch there isn't 
much I can argue against "People should read Text Input and if they 
don't we can't help them/we should help them find that page" or "this 
kind of stuff should conceptually be dealt with in the "Introduction" 
chapter".
But actually my work and suggestions should be considered in the context 
of an overall "user experience on lilypond.org", that's why I offered a 
set of drafts to be read online. From there I was directed to propose 
small, "atomic" patches, and now we're in wrangles about details. It's 
out of proportion given the state some portions of the website are in 
currently.
I don't want to imagine what happens if I propose my rewrite of the 
Features page (http://www.openlilylib.org/lilyweb/features.html).

Urs

> James