On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 01:12:16AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote: > Graham Percival wrote: > > Huh, I didn't reliaze we kept the old unstable directories > > around; they're not listed on > > http://lilypond.org/documentation > > anybody mind if I delete the unstable doc dirs? > > I might mind, but I don't think I'd be able to give any good > reason why. I think it's kinda neat to look through an old > manual from time to time.
Oh, we'll keep the stable docs. I just don't think the old *unstable* docs are worth having online. Note that if anybody wants to do serious archeological work, they can just grab git and compile whatever version they want. > > or /doc/archive ? I'll think about it. > > Well, the problem with "archive" is that the latest > development docs would be there too, because we shouldn't > let google track those either. "Archive" implies old, and > the dev docs are new. True, although it would be simple to have doc/stable/ doc/devel/ doc/archive/ I'll test this later. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
