On 2026-05-14 05:22, Luca Fascione wrote:
Dear Werner, David, Dan and Jonas,
at the moment the project can provide:
1- no documentation
2- unvetted, machine generated translations (that would be clearly
marked as such)
> 3- outdated and/or incomplete documentation, though the little that
is > available was quite accurate when it was new
4- properly authored complete documentation
How well documentation was vetted and how recently it was updated are
independent. There could be outdated unvetted machine translations as well.
Also, "no documentation" is not a fair label for my earlier suggestion:
I do think that [unvetted] machine translations could help
a lot of people as a separate project with clearly presented
goals and caveats.
"Not provided as part of the LilyPond project" is not the same as "no
documentation."
--
Dan
