"Sue Daniels" <s...@treda.co.uk> writes: > Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:50 AM > >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:42:46PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote: >> >>> So I repeat my proposal again: a developer *must* include >>> regression tests, he *should* do the doc work, but if he feels >>> not very comfortable at writing some paragraphs for the >>> docs, he should *have to* raise an issue about that. >> >> I don't think that piling up a bunch of issues will help. Rather, >> we should try to not alienate our existing documentation writers, >> and once that's done, recruit new doc writers. It wouldn't be >> hard for somebody to write docs for every new feature between each >> release. > > I'd prefer to see an issue raised for the documentation by the developer > at the time the new feature is pushed to staging. Otherwise it is likely > to be forgotten. It was only by chance that I happened to find the > change to \time recently and my first action was to raise an issue to > document it. If documentation is to be done as a separate activity it > should be done under an issue anyway, to keep the Bug Squad happy.
The only previous documentation of set-time-signature had been in Documentation/snippets/new/conducting-signs,-measure-grouping-signs.ly and the code updated this. Ok, a snippet is not really a substitute for real documentation, so apologies. I only remembered that I eradicated set-time-signature completely including rewriting its documentation, but I did not remember it had been so flimsy to start with. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
