Helping with the documentation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Helping with the documentation

Graham Percival-2
Hi all,

I'm getting a bit overwhelmed working on the documentation, so I'm
asking for help.  I've posted a list of tasks to the -devel mailist.  
Some of them require very little previous knowledge of LilyPond, and
are actually a great way to learn.  You can read them here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2006-04/msg00231.html

Apart from those tasks, I have on more request: please don't forward an
email from -user to -devel or the bug mailist with the message "you
should improve the docs in this area".  If you think an email contains
important information or clarification of the documentation, please
take the time to propose *exact* changes to the documentation.  If you
are personally involved in the discussion, then you probably know more
about this area than I do.  This is certainly true if the issue
involves anything that is covered in Chapter 7 Instrument-specific
notation.

Finally, some background about me: I'm just a normal user.  In August
2004, I volunteered to become Documentation Editor, because I speak
English as a first language and have some time to contribute.  I didn't
program LilyPond, nor do I have any special training in music
publication.  I play cello and viola at a high level (as a university
undergraduate performer); my knowledge about printed music comes from
reading music.  I have seen a lot of string music, and some orchestral
scores, but I have very little knowledge of vocal music, piano, guitar,
and the like.  If you play any of those instruments -- anything which
is in Chapter 7 -- then I practically guarantee that you know more
about using LilyPond to create music for those instruments.

For information about proposing changes to the docs, see
http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/documentation-adding

Thanks,
- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Bart Kummel
Hi Graham,

What I'm missing currently in the docs is a section about organ music. There are some instrument-specific things that can be discussed in such a section. I'm willing to help with that, but I have very little spare time.

So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs. I believe there is a lilypond plugin for wikis, to make it easy to post comments and their results. We could start by only adding some new topics and then gradually move more and more topics from the old docs to the wiki. After some time we end up with the full documentation in a wiki. Since wikis have a versioning system built in, we could use that to keep info for older versions of Lily available.

I think there are many benefits for using a wiki instead of the way the documentation is done now. I think it's more easy for the editor, because he doesn't have to add all contibutions manually, he only has to edit them. Another benefit is that we don't have to wait until a new version of Lilypond is built for new documentation to come available on-line. A third benefit is that the documentation does not depend on one or a few persons any more.

I hope you want to consider my suggestions. As I said, I don't have much time, but I'm willing to help in the few moments I have. I have some experience with setting up a wiki. And for the documentation itself: I play the organ as an amateur, so I know a low about organ and also choral music notation.

Best regards,
Bart Kummel, Hilversum, The Netherlands

On 4/14/06, Graham Percival <[hidden email] > wrote:
Hi all,

I'm getting a bit overwhelmed working on the documentation, so I'm
asking for help.  I've posted a list of tasks to the -devel mailist.
Some of them require very little previous knowledge of LilyPond, and
are actually a great way to learn.  You can read them here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2006-04/msg00231.html

Apart from those tasks, I have on more request: please don't forward an
email from -user to -devel or the bug mailist with the message "you
should improve the docs in this area".  If you think an email contains
important information or clarification of the documentation, please
take the time to propose *exact* changes to the documentation.  If you
are personally involved in the discussion, then you probably know more
about this area than I do.  This is certainly true if the issue
involves anything that is covered in Chapter 7 Instrument-specific
notation.

Finally, some background about me: I'm just a normal user.  In August
2004, I volunteered to become Documentation Editor, because I speak
English as a first language and have some time to contribute.  I didn't
program LilyPond, nor do I have any special training in music
publication.  I play cello and viola at a high level (as a university
undergraduate performer); my knowledge about printed music comes from
reading music.  I have seen a lot of string music, and some orchestral
scores, but I have very little knowledge of vocal music, piano, guitar,
and the like.  If you play any of those instruments -- anything which
is in Chapter 7 -- then I practically guarantee that you know more
about using LilyPond to create music for those instruments.

For information about proposing changes to the docs, see
http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/documentation-adding

Thanks,
- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Father Geoffrey Horton
> So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more easy.
> Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.

I'm of two minds about this. The advantages you point out are real,
but I also encounter a lot of frustration with wiki-based docs; for
one thing, there's no very good way to make a quick scan through them
looking for something. That makes answers are even harder to find if
your mind doesn't work the same way as that of the person who wrote
the section in question, or if the answer to your question is covered
in a place completely different from where you expect it to be. I
often find answers just by loading the full-page version of the docs
(off my hard drive, so it's quick), doing a text search for a string,
and looking at the material around hits to see if it looks like I'm in
the right place. Most search engines don't return enough context for
this to work well.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Walter Hofmeister
On 4/14/06 9:45 AM, "Geoff Horton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more easy.
>> Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.
>
> I'm of two minds about this. The advantages you point out are real,
> but I also encounter a lot of frustration with wiki-based docs; for
> one thing, there's no very good way to make a quick scan through them
> looking for something. That makes answers are even harder to find if
> your mind doesn't work the same way as that of the person who wrote
> the section in question, or if the answer to your question is covered
> in a place completely different from where you expect it to be. I
> often find answers just by loading the full-page version of the docs
> (off my hard drive, so it's quick), doing a text search for a string,
> and looking at the material around hits to see if it looks like I'm in
> the right place. Most search engines don't return enough context for
> this to work well.
>
> Geoff
>
I agree. I have found the most useful way for me to work with Lilypond is to
download the documentation tarball and have this installed on my hard drive.
I can then easily travel through the User Manual and the Program Reference
sections. I would find using a Wiki cumbersome.
    By the way I would like to thank those who make the Documentation
tarball available. This was a big move forward for me as the previous
documentation did not include the images or they did not get installed on
Mac OS X. This meant that I had to go to the internet and farm the required
pages from the Lilypond site. I am sure the tarball is a far better
solution. Thanks very much!

Walter Hofmeister




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel
"Bart Kummel" <[hidden email]> writes:

> So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
> easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.

this was done in the past without success. a wiki would be an advantage
(besides it's shortcomings) if there was a good number of people wiling
to maintain it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. the current docs
are in much better shape now than ever, and the format in use allows to
generate html pages and pdf as well.

if one wants to help, the easiest way is to write in plain text and send
it to Graham, he will take care of the necessary conversion to the
format in use (texinfo).

Pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Graham Percival-2
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel

On 14-Apr-06, at 8:20 AM, Bart Kummel wrote:

> So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
> easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.

As other people have pointed out, we've tried wikis in the past.  The
latest version is still online:
http://wikihost.org/wikis/lilypond/

In addition, adding new material to the docs is EASIER than using a
wiki.

> I think there are many benefits for using a wiki instead of the way
> the documentation is done now. I think it's more easy for the editor,
> because he doesn't have to add all contibutions manually,

This is absolutely NO problem for me if I get an email which proposes
the exact changes.  The problem in writing docs is in coming up with
the initial text, not in the technical step of translating it into
texinfo.


> Another benefit is that we don't have to wait until a new version of
> Lilypond is built for new documentation to come available on-line.

If this is a serious concern, I could start making doc tarballs
available -- or even hosting temporary docs on my webpage.  I agree
that sometimes this has bothered me.

>  A third benefit is that the documentation does not depend on one or a
> few persons any more.

There is nothing intrinsic in a wiki that does this.  Whether the
documentation depends on a few people is simply a matter of the
community.  As I've said, adding new material to the docs is easier
than adding an entry to a wiki.  All you need is email.

Cheers,
- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Bart Kummel
Hi all,

Unfortunately I do not agree with most of your points. About searching: I often use google. With the option site:lilypond.org you can narrow the search to that site and by including a version number in the search terms you can narrow it down to one version. This method could be used with a wiki too.

About the "tarballs". Most Windows users don't even know what a "tarball" is. Personally I hate local documentation. I always have a browser window open, so it's very easy to seach for a topic by using Google as explained above.

And Graham: I don't get your point saying that the current docs are easier to maintain that a wiki. In the current setup, every piece of documentation has to go through your hands. With a wiki, everyone could add things themselves, so you will get far less work, even if you think editing a wiki is more comples than what you are doing now. (Apart from the fact that in my opinion there is nothing simpler than editing a wiki page...)

Making tarballs available with newer docs than the website looks like a good step, but I think a website should always represent the latest state.

One of the reasons that earlier wiki's weren't a big success could be that people do not want another place to look for documentation. Therefore the best solution (in my opinion) is to replace the current docs with a wiki. I think the way the documentation is done now is a little bit oldfashioned. It may be good for the linux-geeks amongst the lilypond users. But for Windows users, who generally have less knowledge about operating systems, it is now not easy to use and/or to contribute.

Let me end with this: I do appreciate all the work you do in making both lilypond itself and its documentation better with every release. You're all doing a great job! Thanks for that!

Best regards,
Bart Kummel, Hilversum, The Netherlands

On 4/14/06, Graham Percival <[hidden email] > wrote:

On 14-Apr-06, at 8:20 AM, Bart Kummel wrote:

> So I was thinking of a method to make contibuting to the docs more
> easy. Perhaps it's a good idea to set up a wiki for the docs.

As other people have pointed out, we've tried wikis in the past.  The
latest version is still online:
http://wikihost.org/wikis/lilypond/

In addition, adding new material to the docs is EASIER than using a
wiki.

> I think there are many benefits for using a wiki instead of the way
> the documentation is done now. I think it's more easy for the editor,
> because he doesn't have to add all contibutions manually,

This is absolutely NO problem for me if I get an email which proposes
the exact changes.  The problem in writing docs is in coming up with
the initial text, not in the technical step of translating it into
texinfo.


> Another benefit is that we don't have to wait until a new version of
> Lilypond is built for new documentation to come available on-line.

If this is a serious concern, I could start making doc tarballs
available -- or even hosting temporary docs on my webpage.  I agree
that sometimes this has bothered me.

>  A third benefit is that the documentation does not depend on one or a
> few persons any more.

There is nothing intrinsic in a wiki that does this.  Whether the
documentation depends on a few people is simply a matter of the
community.  As I've said, adding new material to the docs is easier
than adding an entry to a wiki.  All you need is email.

Cheers,
- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Father Geoffrey Horton
> Unfortunately I do not agree with most of your points. About searching: I
> often use google. With the option site:lilypond.org you can narrow the
> search to that site and by including a version number in the search terms
> you can narrow it down to one version. This method could be used with a wiki
> too.

I think you're missing at least part of my point. I know how to use
Google with a targeted search. The problem is that the amount of text
surrounding a match that Google returns is often insufficient to
determine if it's what I want, whereas scanning through the whole
manual in a browser automatically returns an entire page of context
(if I want it).

> Personally I hate local documentation.

Many people don't have reliable broadband always available.

You have told us about your personal preferences, which is entirely
legitimate. But my personal preferences are that I really, really
don't like using wiki-only documentation.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Bart Kummel
I think you're missing at least part of my point. I know how to use
Google with a targeted search. The problem is that the amount of text
surrounding a match that Google returns is often insufficient to
determine if it's what I want, whereas scanning through the whole
manual in a browser automatically returns an entire page of context
(if I want it).

OK, Got the point now.

> Personally I hate local documentation.

Many people don't have reliable broadband always available.

You have told us about your personal preferences, which is entirely
legitimate. But my personal preferences are that I really, really
don't like using wiki-only documentation.

This discussion is not only about personal taste. It's about the fact that a large part of the people who maintain lilypond and its documentation are people who are very familiar with computers, linux, et cetera. I'm trying to act as a "devil's advocate" here: there are lots of people out there using Windows, having not much computer knowledge, who are potential users of and contributors to lilypond + docs. I think we're missing those people here, because we do things in a linux-like way.

Using a wiki is just one suggestion to change this. Perhaps there are other ways. I'd like to hear other people's ideas about this.

Best regards,
Bart Kummel

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Kieren MacMillan
Hello, all --

> I'd like to hear other people's ideas about this.

I almost exclusively use the (local) PDF docs as my first target --  
full text searches are easy and complete.

Next (i.e., if I don't find the answer there), I use the lilypond.org  
docs -- usually by this point, I know precisely where the answer will  
(should) be.

Third, I search the list archives -- often, if the docs don't have  
the answer, someone else has run into the same problem before.

Lastly (i.e., if too much time has passed and I still don't have the  
answer), I search using Google -- in general, I find all such  
searches to be so algorithmically general that they are less helpful  
than the above methods in finding a very specific answer quickly.

Best regards,
Kieren.


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Father Geoffrey Horton
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel
> About the "tarballs". Most Windows users don't even know what a "tarball"
> is.

This is a good point. I think zip files are much more portable than tarballs.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel
"Bart Kummel" <[hidden email]> writes:

> About the "tarballs". Most Windows users don't even know what a
> "tarball" is.

no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.

> In the current setup, every piece of documentation has to go through
> your hands.

and that's a good thing to maintain quality and accuracy. if using a
wiki he had to go every page to make sure the information is good and
current. IMHO it's a mistake to assume that editorial control is not
needed in a wiki. in fact, I found editorial control much harder in
wiki-like environments.

> One of the reasons that earlier wiki's weren't a big success could be
> that people do not want another place to look for documentation.
> Therefore the best solution (in my opinion) is to replace the current
> docs with a wiki.

well, I don't have a saying on this, but since there were already 2
unsuccessful wiks in the past I doubt Graham, Jan, or Han-Wen will set
it up. Why don´t you set one up as a proof of concept and show how it
can be better then the current setup?

> I think the way the documentation is done now is a little bit
> oldfashioned.

maybe, but this old-fashioned setup can generate html, pdf, and info;
has a decent revision control (most wikis have only very basics
control version features). another point is that it is concurrent, many
people can work on it at the same time. There is not a wiki that allows
that. and because wikis are centralized, if the main server is down one
can not work on it.

not to mention that the wiki format is a *mess*, heve you tried to
convert a complex doc from one wiki to annother? the texinfo format may
be old-fashioned, but it's stable and well supported.

Regards,

Pedro Kroger


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel

Well, maybe a compromise would be to use something like haloscan. It
allows comments in the page. users could point things in the
documentation that aren't clear, etc.

pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Father Geoffrey Horton
In reply to this post by Pedro Kröger
> no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
> unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.

WinXP has native support for reading zip files but not for tarballs.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Pedro Kröger
"Geoff Horton" <[hidden email]> writes:

>> no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
>> unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.
>
> WinXP has native support for reading zip files but not for tarballs.

this is not much of a problem because a zip file is as easy to generate
as a tarball. but just for the record, if windows users want to be able
to extract files in tarballs and other formats as well they can use the
free program 7-zip:

http://www.7-zip.org/

pedro


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Father Geoffrey Horton
> this is not much of a problem because a zip file is as easy to generate
> as a tarball. but just for the record, if windows users want to be able
> to extract files in tarballs and other formats as well they can use the
> free program 7-zip:
>
> http://www.7-zip.org/

I know. I use it. But is Joe Average who just wants to get some music
set going to have it? Perhaps if the choice is to stick with tarballs,
a link should be placed on the page to the 7-zip site (or some other
appropriate site). But I am rather opposed (not that I have any say in
the matter) to making people download extra programs, no matter how
useful.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Eduardo Vieira
In reply to this post by Pedro Kröger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pedro Kröger" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: "lilypond-user Mailinglist" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Helping with the documentation


"Bart Kummel" <[hidden email]> writes:

> >About the "tarballs". Most Windows users don't even know what a
> >"tarball" is.

Pedro replied:
> no problem, a zip file can also be generated. anyway, AFAIK all major
> unzip programs for windows extract tarballs and other formats as well.

Well, some zip programs cannot open bz2 files. But, the documentation
tarball is already so big, that only compressing in the zip format would
make it too big, don't you think?

> >In the current setup, every piece of documentation has to go through
> >your hands.

Pedro reploed:
> and that's a good thing to maintain quality and accuracy. if using a
> wiki he had to go every page to make sure the information is good and
> current. IMHO it's a mistake to assume that editorial control is not
> needed in a wiki. in fact, I found editorial control much harder in
> wiki-like environments.

I very much agree with that too.

Bart wrote:
>> Another benefit is that we don't have to wait until a new version of
>> Lilypond is built for new documentation to come available on-line.

Graham replied
>If this is a serious concern, I could start making doc tarballs
>available -- or even hosting temporary docs on my webpage.  I agree
>that sometimes this has bothered me.

It would be nice if somewhere in the documentation page there would be
informations like this:
Latest revisions:
April 2, 2006 Section 2.6
April 1, 2006 Section 3.2
This way people that don't use broadband internet could check on updates and
wouldn't be downloading over 14Mb of docs every so often.
These revisions could point directly to the on-line manual or also be a link
to a temporary documentation at Graham's webpage.

Now, another remark about the documentation page: The PDF for "Regression
Tests" and "Tips and Tricks" have the same name: collated-files.pdf. It
would be good to have different names for each.

Regards,

Eduardo Vieira





_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

lilypond_user
Hi all,

My first post, sorry if I haven't lurked long enough to learn any posting protocols.  If it matters, I'm an OS X user...

[quote]
One of the reasons that earlier wiki's weren't a big success could be that people do not want another place to look for documentation. Therefore the best solution (in my opinion) is to replace the current docs with a wiki. I think the way the documentation is done now is a little bit oldfashioned.
[/quote]

What about people like me who write music on a computer that is NOT attached to the Internet?

I personally like a two-pronged approach - I prefer core documentation (the "reference manual") to be in the form of a local pdf file that I can either view or print as needed.  I think that core documentation should be a mirror of what is available on the web site, with each document assigned a revision number and a date, preferably matching major software revisions.  The second "prong" of my approach would be to have some kind of less formal web-based information (the "user guide"?) with tips and tricks, FAQs, and/or lessons...

Doug


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Graham Percival-2
In reply to this post by Bart Kummel

On 15-Apr-06, at 5:12 AM, Bart Kummel wrote:

> And Graham: I don't get your point saying that the current docs are
> easier to maintain that a wiki. In the current setup, every piece of
> documentation has to go through your hands.

That is not the problem.  The problem is that very few people send me
documentation to go through my hands.  :)

> Making tarballs available with newer docs than the website looks like
> a good step, but I think a website should always represent the latest
> state.

Sorry, I was unclear.  I was talking about the current unusual
situation, wherein Han-Wen is away for two weeks and we have no
releases.

- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Helping with the documentation

Graham Percival-2
In reply to this post by Father Geoffrey Horton

On 15-Apr-06, at 7:39 AM, Geoff Horton wrote:

>> this is not much of a problem because a zip file is as easy to
>> generate
>> as a tarball. but just for the record, if windows users want to be
>> able
>> to extract files in tarballs and other formats as well they can use
>> the
>> free program 7-zip:
>
> I know. I use it. But is Joe Average who just wants to get some music
> set going to have it? Perhaps if the choice is to stick with tarballs,
> a link should be placed on the page to the 7-zip site (or some other
> appropriate site). But I am rather opposed (not that I have any say in
> the matter) to making people download extra programs, no matter how
> useful.

Woah, this got out of hand.  :)

Just to completely clarify, my comment about making a tarball available
was aimed at people working on the docs, but who are not comfortable
compiling the docs from CVS.  I think there are three people in this
category, and if this would be useful for them, I'll supply it in
whatever format they want.  These are not intended for normal users.

- Graham



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
12