Doc: document \time command fully (2807)

Doc: document \time command fully (2807)

 - explain optional beatStructure argument of \time
   and give an example

 - expand description of \overrideTimeSignatureSettings

 - add two entries to see alsos

 - add cross-references

 - fix incorrect file reference

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-22 01:30:50]

LGTM

http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8
woah, cool!  When did that happen?

[dak, 2012-09-22 04:37:42]

On 2012/09/22 01:30:50, Graham Percival wrote:
> LGTM
> 
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
> File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
> Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8
> woah, cool!  When did that happen?

2.15.19:

commit a512132fed73a94068b91fb0bab473319e477b6e
Author: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date:   Wed Nov 9 11:37:39 2011 +0100

    Fold set-time-signature into \time

It may be instructional to look at the diff itself.  That's the kind of thing
possible just using music functions now, without the need of messing with the
parser.  I am not entirely sure that it would not have been more prudent to
instead fold \compoundTime into \time, but as long as nobody bothers reviewing
such changes, I need to make them without feedback:

<URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2032>

The only comment here was from QC regarding the tests.  GLISS is happening in
the trenches.  _When_ it happens.  I am not going through our user interfaces
with a fine comb to see where they can be improved, given our current tools. 
And nobody else does.

[dak, 2012-09-22 07:32:20]

On 2012/09/22 04:37:42, dak wrote:
> On 2012/09/22 01:30:50, Graham Percival wrote:
> > LGTM
> > 
> >
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
> > File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right):
> > 
> >
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.i...
> > Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8
> > woah, cool!  When did that happen?

As a PostScriptum, comment #12 of issue 2032:

<URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2032#c12>

Note that the change itself are two lines.  The rest is documentation,
convert-ly rules (and their results), cleanup, informing
display-lily-music about the syntax change, trivial infrastructure.
Apart from the decision to make this change (and the rather thorough
convert-ly rules, apparently successful enough for nobody to ever take
notice), all Frog level work.

Nobody can be bothered enough to even comment.  Yet when it comes to
discussing things that will wreak havoc with the parser, everybody is
fired up and inspired to throw his own spanner into the works.

I am not saying that this is ill will.  It is just a consequence of
how we are organizing our work and information flow.  The problem is
that with regard to developer and user motivation, the consequences
are indistinguishable from ill will and/or disregard.

Users get "GLISS discussions" where they get the impression that
developers don't care one bit for them, developers get "reviews" where
they get the impression that users don't care one bit for them.

I know both impressions to be far from the truth.  But that's more by
deduction rather than a direct feeling.

[pkx166h, 2012-09-22 08:25:28]

Looks OK to me

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-23 02:27:52]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:32:20AM +0000, dak@gnu.org wrote:
> Nobody can be bothered enough to even comment.

Yes, that is a problem.  I wish that more developers looked at the
countdown and did reviews.  For example, many of Keith's changes
in the past month have had absolutely no reviews.

If you have a magic wand to fix the opinions of skilled
programmers involved with lilypond -- including yourself -- then I
am all ears.  I find it disheartening that many programmers have
bemoaned that nobody reviews their patches, yet they do not take
the step of reviewing other people's patches.

- Graham

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-09-24 10:58:29]

Pushed to staging as
f8710cbaf9563515cf383c658a534b5c902897a1
Closing

[janek, 2012-09-26 14:40:18]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012, David wrote:

> Nobody can be bothered enough to even comment.  Yet when it comes to
> discussing things that will wreak havoc with the parser, everybody is
> fired up and inspired to throw his own spanner into the works.
>
> I am not saying that this is ill will.  It is just a consequence of
> how we are organizing our work and information flow.  The problem is
> that with regard to developer and user motivation, the consequences
> are indistinguishable from ill will and/or disregard.
>
> Users get "GLISS discussions" where they get the impression that
> developers don't care one bit for them, developers get "reviews" where
> they get the impression that users don't care one bit for them.
>
> I know both impressions to be far from the truth.  But that's more by
> deduction rather than a direct feeling.
>

I agree that we have a serious problem.  Hopefully, you've presented the
first step to solve it: realize that this is not ill will, but rather
unfortunate coincidences and poor wording of emails.

best,
Janek

[janek, 2012-09-26 14:40:19]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012, David wrote:
>
> 2.15.19:
>
> commit a512132fed73a94068b91fb0bab473**319e477b6e
> Author: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Date:   Wed Nov 9 11:37:39 2011 +0100
>
>     Fold set-time-signature into \time
>
> It may be instructional to look at the diff itself.  That's the kind of
> thing possible just using music functions now, without the need of
> messing with the parser.  I am not entirely sure that it would not have
> been more prudent to instead fold \compoundTime into \time, but as long
> as nobody bothers reviewing such changes, I need to make them without
> feedback
>

David, i'm sorry that this had happened.  Indeed this was a change both
easy and short to review, and i wish i had reviewed it.  I have missed many
things during my absence in last year Autumn.
I want to assure you that i believe this is a needed and useful change, and
i will be happy to see more similar changes in the future.

best,
Janek