On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:53:06PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > 1. git-clone gets the entire repo, not just the particular > > branch that you want. > > Indeed, but as Git is pretty efficient, simplicity beats correctness here.
What if a newbie wants to fix some typos in the English docs, work on translations, and possibly translate the website? That's three branches. > > 2. We don't want newbies switching between branches, because > > (speaking from experience) that wastes 1-5 hours of frustrating > > time-wasting when you're just trying to work on lilypond. > > I agree. Before you understand the ways branches can split at a common > commit and come together again at a merge commit (and all kinds of weird > criss-cross merge scenarios), this is more than just confusing. Yes. Given my understanding of the situation, the current system (where users copy&paste 4 or 5 lines of totally cryptic commands and possibly see some warning messages, but end up with a working setup) is the best for people working on individual branches in individual directories. People understand directories. :) I'm totally open to changing these cut&paste command blocks, but I'm not certain that git clone is the best way to go, especially for the case of a translator who notices typos. git clone may be efficient, but efficient enough to store three separate clones of the same repo? Especially when one (the web/ branch) is a tiny fraction of the sizes of the other two (master/ and lilypond/translate/ ). Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
