On 2013/02/25 16:02:41, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Not quite, but it is hardly a point worth labouring over. Changes are listed with the most recent at the top, and 'previously' means 'earlier in time', so it ought to refer to items lower in the list.
Our changes list is not really ordered in strict reverse chronology for the reader. That's the way it is accumulating (unless several changes to one area are getting conflated, in which case changes may appear well below the top). I don't see "following" as indicating a time order, and "below" is not really specific. I'd have no qualms doing a one-word change without rerunning reviews, but I don't think that the one-word change "below" carries the full information, and "next change below" is not much better. So unless I get a wording that fares better in terms of being understandable, I'd lean towards sticking with the current text. I think people can be expected to read from top to bottom, and I find specifying things in terms of reading order most natural. https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
