Hi Graham,just a short note from FISL, where I just saw a session on documentation. Wouldn't it be cool to have excercises for each section? Easy ones makes the learning targets of each part of the manual more explicit, and difficult ones make the manual more interesting for sophisticated users.
Am 2006-04-22 um 16:03 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
Wouldn't it be cool to have excercises for each section? Easy ones
makes the learning targets of each part of the manual more
explicit, and difficult ones make the manual more interesting for
sophisticated users.
Maybe there are some
On 4/22/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Graham,
just a short note from FISL, where I just saw a session on documentation.
Wouldn't it be cool to have excercises for each section? Easy ones makes the
learning targets of each part of the manual more explicit, and difficult
On 22-Apr-06, at 7:03 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have excercises for each section?
Umm. I'm not really looking for more cool things to add to the docs,
you know. :)Cool things should happen once the basic stuff is
done.
Easy ones makes the learning targets
Quoting Bart Kummel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One of the reasons that earlier wiki's weren't a big success could be that
people do not want another place to look for documentation. Therefore the
best solution (in my opinion) is to replace the current docs with a wiki. I
think the way the documentation
On 15-Apr-06, at 5:41 PM, David Feuer wrote:
On 4/15/06, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to completely clarify, my comment about making a tarball
available
was aimed at people working on the docs, but who are not comfortable
compiling the docs from CVS.
I think it'd be great
Hi all,Unfortunately I do not agree with most of your points. About searching: I often use google. With the option site:lilypond.org you can narrow the search to that site and by including a version number in the search terms you can narrow it down to one version. This method could be used with a
Unfortunately I do not agree with most of your points. About searching: I
often use google. With the option site:lilypond.org you can narrow the
search to that site and by including a version number in the search terms
you can narrow it down to one version. This method could be used with a
I think you're missing at least part of my point. I know how to useGoogle with a targeted search. The problem is that the amount of text
surrounding a match that Google returns is often insufficient todetermine if it's what I want, whereas scanning through the wholemanual in a browser
Hello, all --
I'd like to hear other people's ideas about this.
I almost exclusively use the (local) PDF docs as my first target --
full text searches are easy and complete.
Next (i.e., if I don't find the answer there), I use the lilypond.org
docs -- usually by this point, I know
About the tarballs. Most Windows users don't even know what a tarball
is.
This is a good point. I think zip files are much more portable than tarballs.
Geoff
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Bart Kummel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About the tarballs. Most Windows users don't even know what a
tarball is.
no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.
In the current setup, every piece of
Well, maybe a compromise would be to use something like haloscan. It
allows comments in the page. users could point things in the
documentation that aren't clear, etc.
pedro
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.
WinXP has native support for reading zip files but not for tarballs.
Geoff
___
lilypond-user mailing list
Geoff Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.
WinXP has native support for reading zip files but not for tarballs.
this is not much of a problem because a zip
this is not much of a problem because a zip file is as easy to generate
as a tarball. but just for the record, if windows users want to be able
to extract files in tarballs and other formats as well they can use the
free program 7-zip:
http://www.7-zip.org/
I know. I use it. But is Joe
- Original Message -
From: Pedro Kröger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Helping with the documentation
Bart Kummel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About the tarballs. Most
Hi all,
My first post, sorry if I haven't lurked long enough to learn any posting
protocols. If it matters, I'm an OS X user...
[quote]
One of the reasons that earlier wiki's weren't a big success could be that
people do not want another place to look for documentation. Therefore the best
On 15-Apr-06, at 5:12 AM, Bart Kummel wrote:
And Graham: I don't get your point saying that the current docs are
easier to maintain that a wiki. In the current setup, every piece of
documentation has to go through your hands.
That is not the problem. The problem is that very few people
On 15-Apr-06, at 7:39 AM, Geoff Horton wrote:
this is not much of a problem because a zip file is as easy to
generate
as a tarball. but just for the record, if windows users want to be
able
to extract files in tarballs and other formats as well they can use
the
free program 7-zip:
I know.
On 15-Apr-06, at 2:50 PM, Eduardo Vieira wrote:
Graham replied
If this is a serious concern, I could start making doc tarballs
available -- or even hosting temporary docs on my webpage. I agree
that sometimes this has bothered me.
It would be nice if somewhere in the documentation page
On 4/15/06, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to completely clarify, my comment about making a tarball available
was aimed at people working on the docs, but who are not comfortable
compiling the docs from CVS.
I think it'd be great to make a tarball available that's almost
Hi all,
I'm getting a bit overwhelmed working on the documentation, so I'm
asking for help. I've posted a list of tasks to the -devel mailist.
Some of them require very little previous knowledge of LilyPond, and
are actually a great way to learn. You can read them here:
Hi Graham,What I'm missing currently in the docs is a section about organ music. There are some instrument-specific things that can be discussed in such a section. I'm willing to help with that, but I have very little spare time.
So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more easy.
Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.
I'm of two minds about this. The advantages you point out are real,
but I also encounter a lot of frustration with wiki-based docs; for
one thing, there's no very
On 4/14/06 9:45 AM, Geoff Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more easy.
Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.
I'm of two minds about this. The advantages you point out are real,
but I also encounter a lot of
Bart Kummel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.
this was done in the past without success. a wiki would be an advantage
(besides it's shortcomings) if there was a good number
On 14-Apr-06, at 8:20 AM, Bart Kummel wrote:
So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.
As other people have pointed out, we've tried wikis in the past. The
latest version is still online:
28 matches
Mail list logo
