Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/12/09 3:56 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:32:26PM -0500, Chris Snyder wrote:
>> I think my experience does illustrate the care necessary in shepherding
>> new developers. I think the LilyPond developer community would do well
>> to treat newbies with kid gloves - contributing to a project for the
>> first time can be intimidating. The Frogs program is a good step, but
>> it's not very well publicized.
> 
> I think your "mistake" -- which was quite a natural response --
> was to send the patch to lilypond-devel.  One of the ideas behind
> the Frogs is that Carl could gently suggest some improvements
> privately; then you could send it to the frog mailist for more
> general viewing; and then (and only then!) you could send it to
> -devel.

Actually, given that he had help from Joe, I would have just assumed things
were fine and put the patch up for review.  I assume that Han-Wen would
still have raised the issues in the same way.  The only difference would
have been that I might have been able to provide a little bit more emotional
support to help with the blow.
> 
>>> I didn't even know that.  I hope we can get this documented.  Would you be
>>> willing to take a stab at how events are passed to engravers (or how various
>>> routines inside an engraver are called from outside the engraver)?
>> 
>> Perhaps this could be part of a developer tutorial that details creating
>> a new engraver from scratch? I'm envisioning a LM-equivalent for the CG
>> with the same relationship that the LM has to the NR (the full names of
>> which must not be named).
> 
> If it's something that a user might do, put it in Extending.  If
> not, put it in the CG.

Definitely not Extending.  Hooray for the Developer Learning Manual, which
can be a chapter of the CG.  I'll make you a deal.  You contribute text,
I'll put it into the CG.

Thanks,

Carl