On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:12:56PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Graham, > >> If the initial response to his question was "read the 2.11 docs >> about transposition and file syntax", the whole discussion would >> have been over in 2 or 3 emails. > > So rather than making this yet another pissing contest (that's my "rude + > accurate" comment),
:) In defense of Jonathan, his responses *were* accurate; they were just too polite. I mean, they were accurate and looked accurate, but it invited a discussion about file syntax. We've spent about 10 hours working on file syntax ALONE in the 2.11 docs; unless you think that you can explain the concept better in an email than multiple people could do in 10 hours, I strongly suggest that we simply tell people to RTB211D. > why don't we suggest EXPLICITLY to everyone on the > list that all "RTFM" comments should be "RTFCM" (C = current) comments? Definitely! Although since there are multiple manuals, and to be slightly more polite, it should be RTB211D. :) That said, I believe that all doc-pointing in recent months *has* been to the 2.11 docs -- we just aren't consistent in saying "read the 2.11 docs instead of 2.10". On second thought, I regret using the word "bloody" in my first email. That's should be saved for people who know me and will understand the joke. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user