Hello, On 24 September 2012 09:22, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
