Re: GDP: the snippets vs. texinfo

[Graham Percival]

Eyolf Østrem wrote:
> > The entire chapter needs to be done before the end
> >  of 2007.
>  
> Well, if what you say below is the goal, that on the whole the docs should
> not change after the GDP, I'd say there is no need to rush it, especially
> if there are so few people to do the work.

Two phases: before 2007, get GDP "no worse" than the 2.11 docs.  That 
means somebody spending a week looking at each section in NR 1 and 
cleaning up the worst TODO / FIXMEs.

After 2007, if anybody is still interested, we'll try go bring GDP from 
"not worse than" to "significantly better than".  Or perhaps even 
"perfect".  :)

> >  Now do you see why I keep on saying "we can't do X"?  :(
>
> Of course. As long as it doesn't turn into a "We can't do X, so we won't
> even consider it, not even if it would make Y -- which we can and must do
> -- easier."

True.


> >  Important tweaks in LSR are moved into the docs by giving them a "docs" tag.
>
> but that will only include them in the snippet part of the docs, right?
> This may of course be enough in many cases, but there are some snippets
> which are central enough to merit inclusion in the main text as well. The
> snippet Adding an extra staff (http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=110)
> IMHO should be included directly, and Adding beams, slurs, ties, etc.
> (http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=321) is even *formulated* in a
> Documentation way, as an extension to what is already in there, rather than
> an additional piece of information. Those two could go almost straight in.

First, THANK YOU!!! for bringing up specific examples.  Especially in 
this case, since I was thought you were talking about a totally 
different kind of snippet.

Second, yes I totally agree; these kinds of snippets should be in the 
main docs.  In fact,  321 is already verbatim in LM 3.3.1.  110 doesn't 
appear anywhere, but I'm adding it to LM 3 right now.

> eyolf (who will now stop spending time writing list mail and instead do
> some volunteer work...)

:)

Cheers,
- Graham