Re: LSR -> lilypond docs

[Graham Percival]

Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2007/11/15, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
> > As I have said earlier, I think it would be a big loss if the
> > web site could not provide the full documentation for
> > multiple old version, including a "complete" set of example files
> > with the correct syntax for the corresponding version.
>
> This is one of the reasons why I still haven't fully understood the
> point in tagging LSR snippet as "docs": if a snippet is documentation
> relevant, then it should probably be added to the documentation as a
> "real" example, shouldn't it?

Do you mean "documentation" or "manual"?

- if something is in the manual, it can only be upgraded by about half a 
dozen people on the planet -- me, Mats, John... maybe some of the other 
developers if it was really urgent.  Note that none of the GDP helpers 
are able to do this.

- if something is in LSR, it can be upgraded by anybody.  OK, you need 
to approve the change, but if necessary we could have more LSR editors. 
 I mean, the only technical ability you need is the use of a web 
browser (instead of git, building the docs, permission to upload to 
lilypond git, etc).

- if something is in LSR and is tagged with "docs", it AUTOMAGICALLY 
becomes part of our documentation.  The "Snippets" link on the main doc 
page points to files built from input/lsr/*/ .  This is part of our 
_documentation_, although not part of the _manual_.

> Oh yes; anyway, I'm fine with LSR running 2.10.
> I've just rewritten the LSR contributing page with that in mind, and
> I'm fine with my idea of marking not-yet-working snippets with "[needs
> LSR upgrade]" or something. I know you're not fond of it, but as long
> as it applies to  a dozen snippets it's perfectly manageable.

There's another dozen such examples in input/new/ .  I really don't see 
the point of adding them until LSR is upgraded.

- Graham