On 7/11/09 4:21 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> Here's my proposal for the source/makefile view of documentation.
> (this is the big argument one)
>
In general, I think these proposals are reasonable.
>
> My understanding is that linking between texinfo manuals is easier
> if the main files are in the same directory. With that in mind, I
> propose:
>
> docs/
> docs/learning.tely
> docs/learning/*.itely
> docs/notation.tely
> docs/notation/*.itely
> + glossary, essay, application
>
> docs/snippets.tely (moved from input/lsr/ and input/new/)
> docs/snippets/*.ly
I would only support this if we have some reasonable process for supporting
snippets on development versions.
Right now, when I'm working on new syntax for autobeaming, it's really
convenient to have snippets in input/new that automatically get transferred
to input/snippets by running makelsr.py.
As much as I like the lsr, I don't like having documentation depend on the
lsr. I shouldn't have to put snippets in the lsr in order to get them in
the documentation, or else I should have a much easier way of getting them
into the lsr.
Are we about to ditch the lsr as a part of LilyPond documentation?
>
> docs/contributors.texi
> docs/contributors/*.texi
>
> docs/web.texi
> docs/web/*.itexi
>
> docs/topdocs/
> docs/topdocs/changes.texi
> docs/topdocs/compile.texi
>
> regression/ new location of input/regressions/
> input/ completely deleted
>
>
Thanks for your efforts,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
