Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>> I don't think that this is useful advice since binaries often are >>>> incompatible with Scheme/Lilypond trees of other versions, and since >>>> many regressions are not introduced in the binaries. >>> >>> Trevor meant the GUB packages, which install the "actual binary" >>> as well as the scheme stuff, fonts, etc. >> >> Then the proper wording is "downloading binary releases" or "binary >> packages". But "binaries" means something different. > > I think this is nitpicking; we don't release just the binary files > separately; people'd have to go through contortions to do what you > think is suggested.
Well, _I_ understood the wording wrong. Do you really want to bet your life on it that I am the most stupid person possibly ever working with Lilypond, so that nobody else possibly could misunderstand? So that it would certainly be appropriate not to add another word to the documentation that would clarify things? Because Lilypond documentation has the design goal of not using a single word too many? Considering the absurdity of the vetting process, it is a pity that commit access is only granted once one has proven to have the right frame of mind. I mean, get real: 3 involved persons and half a dozen postings for getting a single-word improvement into the docs (assuming that it will eventually get there)? Perhaps half a man-hour of work time and 5µg of Adrenaline for such trivialities? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
