On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:25:59PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Sorry, I was _way_ too terse (but look at the time I wrote this; and I was > still working, not watching TV)...
:) > What I really meant is: A 'git clone' will fetch too many branches. So it > is not efficient. But it is simple, so we should recommend 'git clone' > even if that means fetching too much. I disagree; they are both exactly the same level of simplicity: 1) Copy and paste the following lines: git clone blah 1) Copy and paste the following lines: mkdir lilypond cd lilypond git init git checkout blah git foobazzle bluh By "simplicity" I mean "amount of mental effort the contributor must expend". We have the *exact* commands written for every main branch. See http://www.kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/devel/contrib-guide/Getting-the-source-code.html > In the alternative, you could try to illustrate how branches look like. ... > But maybe that is all too complicated; I've been a Git for too long, and > you are much closer to people scared by distributed SCMs... Mao, *I'm* still scared of distributed SCMs. :) I really think that the current system is good. If we can reduce the number of lines in the copy&paste section (with git checkout project/branch or whatever), then I'm all for it, but the current system uses a few lines of black magick to produce separate directories which only download the relevant history to that directory ("branch"). Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
