Menu
▾
▴
1 Attachments
#2539 Redocument tweak
Originally created by: *anonymous
Originally created by: dak@gnu.org
Originally owned by: dak@gnu.org
I actually don't know how to assign priority for this one and/or how to tackle it. The documentation for \tweak is out of whack with regard to applying it to single notes (look at the embarrassing screenshot). In addition, \tweak's internals will gain the power to modify stems, automatic beams (manual beams never were a problem) and accidentals directly in the course of committing issue 2536. This is just a matter of missing user interface, and the syntax
\tweak Accidental #'color #red cis
can trivially be made available for this (in short, you use an optional _string_ to identify the grob).
I think I will extend the \tweak music function in the course of the commit implementing the _functionality_ as part of \footnote, including its documentation string. But that still leaves work for the manuals which are already out of whack, and my skills for writing user-level documentation leave something to be desired.
I might still do a fast push on some changes which correct the facts since I think badly written and right beats nicely written and wrong, and catching up to nicely written and right might be easier once the facts are in place.
Originally posted by: tdanielsmusic
I agree it is preferable to have correct rather than pretty docs. If you, David, can correct the basic facts any number of us can pretty-up after you. I think that LP is now sufficiently mature that any serious factual discrepancy between the NR and actual operation should be marked critical to prevent making a stable release in that condition.
Trevor
Labels: -Type-Documentation Type-Critical
Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
I am working on getting the facts right, under the assumption that issue 2540 will pass (which affects the statements about what may and what may not be possible).
Once the factual changes are right and committed, this issue will no longer be critical, but that does not mean that the documentation may not need additional changes to bring it up to LilyPond's standards. It would be good to bring those in speedily to give translators slightly more time for catching up.
Blockedon: 2540
Owner: dak@gnu.org
Status: Started
Related
Issues:
#2540Originally posted by: lily...@orange.fr
"It would be good to bring those in speedily to give translators slightly more time for catching up."
May a guy-always-on-a-rush say « Thanks, David ! »
Jean-Charles
Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
Issue 2539: Redocument tweak
This adjusts the documentation of \tweak to take into account
a) EventChord not intervening uncalled for (issue 2240)
b) the ability to specify indirect grobs (issue 2540)
The patch as reviewed includes that for issue 2540 on first
submission as that has not yet been committed to master.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6219047
Labels: Patch-new
Related
Issues:
#2540Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
Patchy the autobot says: passes tests.
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
Issue 2539: Redocument tweak
This adjusts the documentation of \tweak to take into account
a) EventChord not intervening uncalled for (issue 2240)
b) the ability to specify indirect grobs (issue 2540)
The patch as reviewed includes that for issue 2540 on first
submission as that has not yet been committed to master.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6219047
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-new
Related
Issues:
#2540Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
I am currently rerunning Patch testing for this and issue 2540. I have been thinking this over, and it would not appear to make sense to delay pushing the initial iteration of the docs/regtests for the extended tweaks since the state without committing those is strictly worse for cranking out the next release.
I'd certainly applaud if someone made sure that the docs are up to our standards. But hopefully I have not messed this up so bad that translators need to restart from scratch in case they base their work on this.
Related
Issues:
#2540Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
Patchy the autobot says: passes tests.
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-countdown
Originally posted by: ColinPKC...@gmail.com
Counted down to 20120520, please push
Labels: -Patch-countdown Patch-push
Originally posted by: dak@gnu.org
Pushed as [rce1c0fabb3d5ac18e61fb8fcc91a3990714553c2] to staging.
I am leaving the state as "Started" and "Patch-review" for a few days since this was on an abbreviated countdown. Please consider further review.
However, this is no longer release-blocking, and I am giving it a preliminary Fixed_2_15_39 label.
Blockedon: -lilypond:2540
Summary: Redocument tweak
Labels: -Type-Critical -Patch-push Type-Documentation Fixed_2_15_39 Patch-review
Originally posted by: ColinPKC...@gmail.com
The extended countdown is up today, so I'll set this back to Fixed, as it has already been pushed and has two LGTM.
Labels: -Patch-review
Status: Fixed
Originally posted by: Elu...@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Verified