Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint

[David Kastrup]

"Sue Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:50 AM
>
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:42:46PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
>>
>>> So I repeat my proposal again: a developer *must* include
>>> regression tests, he *should* do the doc work, but if he feels
>>> not very comfortable at writing some paragraphs for the
>>> docs, he should *have to* raise an issue about that.
>> 
>> I don't think that piling up a bunch of issues will help.  Rather,
>> we should try to not alienate our existing documentation writers,
>> and once that's done, recruit new doc writers.  It wouldn't be
>> hard for somebody to write docs for every new feature between each
>> release.
>
> I'd prefer to see an issue raised for the documentation by the developer
> at the time the new feature is pushed to staging.  Otherwise it is likely
> to be forgotten.  It was only by chance that I happened to find the
> change to \time recently and my first action was to raise an issue to
> document it.  If documentation is to be done as a separate activity it
> should be done under an issue anyway, to keep the Bug Squad happy.

The only previous documentation of set-time-signature had been in

Documentation/snippets/new/conducting-signs,-measure-grouping-signs.ly

and the code updated this.  Ok, a snippet is not really a substitute for
real documentation, so apologies.  I only remembered that I eradicated
set-time-signature completely including rewriting its documentation, but
I did not remember it had been so flimsy to start with.

-- 
David Kastrup